California Appellate Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953920973
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4154950500
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Legal Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,887,467
Expenses
$12,420,360
Assets
$10,612,497
Liabilities
$6,592,678

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOSEPH SCHLESINGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LAURA MURRY (SUPERVISING ATTORNEY): $174,308 total reported compensation
  • SARAH A CHESTER (SUPERVISING ATTORNEY): $172,582 total reported compensation
  • JOSEPH SCHLESINGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $172,499 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To aid to the supreme court of California and second district court of appeal in meeting their obligations to provide competent and qualified defense counsel for indigent defendants in capital and other appeals and habeas corpus proceedings by providing assistance to private appointed counsel in these cases.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cap-sf: in 2024, the san francisco office of cap assisted approximately 81 private attorneys who were appointed to represent clients in about 235 cases stemming from 220 judgments including approximately 70 habeas corpus proceedings. Additionally, cap provided training programs, consultations and research materials for appointed counsel, including practice guides and orientations on California's recent sentencing reform laws. The office also offered record gathering, general resources and consultation services to around 329 condemned defendants who were either partially or completely unrepresented by appointed counsel.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 88.8%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
  • 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 3.6%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.85; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.62; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.7%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.7% of revenue deployed · 88.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $11M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $174K · 16 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.