Center for Rural American Justice
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 994185429
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Chandler, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 9282459194
- Rating
- 57
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Crime, Legal Related N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $653,405
- Expenses
- $638,708
- Assets
- $27,586
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Celeste Robertson (President CEO)
- Garet Kartchner (Vice-President of Prosecution)
- Cecilia Diaz (Vice-President of Operations)
Highest reported compensation
- Garet Kartchner (Vice-President of Prosecution): $178,287 total reported compensation
- Celeste Robertson (President CEO): $168,048 total reported compensation
- Cecilia Diaz (Vice-President of Operations): $148,464 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 exclusively promote access to justice through criminal prosecution victim advocacy and training for rural and tribal communities in need. To exclusively provide prosecution services to rural municipalities counties and tribes in a manner that is cost-effective to those communities.
What it reported doing in 2025
In 2025 CRAJ provided prosecution services to approximately five rural counties and towns helping expand access to justice in underserved areas. The organization prosecuted more than 250 felony cases and over 500 misdemeanor cases. In addition CRAJ delivered victim assistance services in several of these communities offering advocacy and support to individuals impacted by crime.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 98% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- 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
MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 61
- Transparency & Controls: 66
- Accountability: 31
- Sustainability: 29
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 68.1%; rating input score 68
- Program expense ratio: 69.7%; rating input score 70
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 2.2%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.04; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 77.5%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 148% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 146.9% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 72.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 68.1% of revenue deployed · 69.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $445K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $178K · 4 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
- 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.