Babseacle Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 275051293
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Port Washington, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5162635018
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- International Democracy & Civil Society Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $970,287
- Expenses
- $794,700
- Assets
- $612,274
- Liabilities
- $436,687
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- BRUCE A LASKY (DIRECTOR): $47,114 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To establish, strengthen and support access to justice rule of law globally through justice education legal aid and pro bono initiatives, that include a core focus on legal ethics, professional responsibility and pro bono awareness.
What it reported doing in 2025
BABSEACLE holds an externship clinic program to support and development, justice education, as well as pro bono and access to justice initiatives throughout the Asian region. Interns were placed in one of our partner universities in the region, to teach CLE English to law teachers and law students. The CLE English curriculum combines English comprehension with CLE content and methodologies. As well as teaching, interns also had the responsibility of helping to develop the CLE English case studies and curriculum through researching, contextualizing & creating independent lesson plans. More than 40 interns were placed in the program. Interns from many countries participated with placement between 2 - 6 weeks.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 52
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 70%; rating input score 70
- Program expense ratio: 85.5%; rating input score 85
- Fundraising efficiency: $156.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 18.1%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.77; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.71; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 70% of revenue deployed · 85.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $679K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $47K · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 24 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.