Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521584951
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Silver Spring, MD, USA
Phone
3015654800
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Civil Rights
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$18,938,850
Expenses
$20,710,019
Assets
$14,859,289
Liabilities
$2,385,215

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANNA MARIE GALLAGHER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & SECRETARY)
  • MS PEG HARMON (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANNA MARIE GALLAGHER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & SECRETARY): $218,464 total reported compensation
  • CHARLES H WHEELER (SENIOR ATTORNEY): $152,311 total reported compensation
  • MICHELLE SARDONE (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $152,108 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 embrace the gospel value of welcoming the stranger by promoting the dignity and protecting the rights of immigrants in partnership with a dedicated network of catholic and community legal immigration programs.

What it reported doing in 2025

Education and network growth - guides nonprofit organization leaders to begin or expand charitable immigration legal services, equip nonprofit immigration legal representatives with training on immigration law and program management skills, manage projects serving vulnerable immigrants delivered by local nonprofit organizations benefitting from clinic's structure, oversight and commitment to catholic social teaching.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 49% for direct work, and 51% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.6%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $23.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99%; rating input score 99; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.72; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.6% of revenue deployed · 86.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $17.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $218K · 25 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $996K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 37 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 105 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 99 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.