Crag Law Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931323758
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5035252728
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,887,134
Expenses
$1,523,859
Assets
$4,487,958
Liabilities
$99,952

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • COURTNEY JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • COURTNEY JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $139,565 total reported compensation
  • OLIVER STIEFEL (SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY): $126,965 total reported compensation
  • MERIEL DARZEN (SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY): $124,725 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Providing legal aid to the environment by providing legal services to conservation organizations, community groups, native american tribes, and individuals working to protect and sustain the pacific northwest's natural legacy.

What it reported doing in 2025

Crag law center provides legal services to conservation organizations, community groups & communities working on environmental issues. Over the past 25 years, crag has provided services to over one hundred organizations working in the public interest. Legal services focus on protection of the wild, communities & the climate. These services were provided for free, at below market rates and/or on a contingency basis to the community. Crag services include assistance with bringing litigation in state & federal courts, with mediation & settlement of complex natural resource disputes, & with public education. Crag also provides legal assistance in non-profit formation, management & outreach for non-profits working in the public interest. Crag also works with other non-profit organizations to hold public events including screenings of films that address various environmental issues. These events help to educate communities about environmental issues & the legal tools that can be used to address these issues. Crag's 2025 cases litigated or in litigation were where fees were recovered: (1) greater hells canyon council et al - eastside screens. Represent conservation organizations challenging rule change to remove protection for large trees on federal forests east of the cascades. Public benefit: protection of large trees and wildlife habitat on public lands. Fee award: $364,946 (2) Oregon wild - grasshopper project. Represent conservation organizations in challenging logging project on mt hood national forest. Public benefit: protection of forest habitat and water quality. Fee income: $9,000. (3) waterwatch of Oregon - winchester dam. Represent conservation organizations in enforcement actions related to private dam repairs. Public benefit: protection of water quality and fish habitat. Fee income $6,923. (4) cascadia wildlands, - rogue gold logging project. Represent conservation organizations in challenge to logging project. Public benefit: protection of forest ecosystems and wildlife habitat. Fee income: $5,000 (5)columbia riverkeeper, 1000 friends of Oregon - next renewables. Represent conservation groups to challenge conversion of farmland to industrial uses including alternative fuels production. Public benefit. Protection of farm lands and rural economic values. Fee income: $5,000. (6) greater hells canyon conservation council v. Us dept of ag - represent conservation organizations to enforce freedom of information act for release of public documents related to rule change to rollback protections for large trees on federal forests easts of the cascades. Public benefit: government transparency and protection of large trees and mature forests on eastside public lands. Fee income: $80.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.5%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 73.9%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.3%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.95; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.2%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.5% of revenue deployed · 73.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $140K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 44 of 44 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.