Arizona Foundation for Legal Services & Education

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953351710
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
6023407356
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$23,793,539
Expenses
$9,829,809
Assets
$27,224,905
Liabilities
$924,237

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN BRICHLER TRUJILLO (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • LANCE BROBERG (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • HON JOSEPH KREAMER (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER LEE-COTA (PAST PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KEVIN RUEGG (CEOEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $256,187 total reported compensation
  • ALVARO FLORES (CIO): $218,639 total reported compensation
  • LARA SLIFKO (CRO): $218,421 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Organized and operated exclusively for charitable and educational purposes, which includes carrying on the following purposes,(contd on schedule o)

What it reported doing in 2024

Legal services is the first of the two steps toward access to justice for all. With these program services, we offer training, scholarships, mentoring, recognition and award programs and financial assistance. These services are offered to individuals and entities promoting free legal services and support to those in Arizona most vulnerable. In addition to the direct financial and legal support offered, legal service education is provided through law related websites. Over 500,000 Arizona households benefited from our program services through grantees and volunteers. Our websites are visited over 250,000 times each month where children, adults and seniors are receiving the legal answers they need.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 96% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 63% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.3%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 93.2%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $148.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 58.7%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.77; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.2%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.3% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40.3% of revenue deployed · 93.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $9.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $256K · 31 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 26 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 20 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.