Dauphin County Bar Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
236256001
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Harrisburg, PA, USA
Phone
7172327536
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$782,038
Expenses
$729,776
Assets
$907,164
Liabilities
$185,558

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FAWN KEHLER (PRESIDENT)
  • JESSICA E SMITH (PRESIDENT -)

Highest reported compensation

  • PATRICE MERZANIS (EXECUTIVE DI): $142,769 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The purposes of the dauphin county bar association are to advance the science of jurisprudence, to promote the administration of justice, to encourage a thorough legal education, to promote continuing legal education, to uphold the honor and dignity of the bar, to encourage the fulfillment of the obligations of the profession among its members to the courts and to society, to promote programs to provide effective, affordable legal services to all segments of society, to cultivate cordial intercourse among the members of the association and to perpetuate the history of the profession and the memory of its members and such kindred purposes as the association may from time to time determine.

What it reported doing in 2025

Lawyer referral program - dauphin county bar association's lawyer referral program assists roughly 3,000 people who call for assistance finding an attorney appropriate to their legal needs. To participate in the program, a registration fee of 100 is charged to the attorney. The revenue generated by the registration fees and 10% referral fee (approximately 7,500) is more than offset by the costs of malpractice insurance and the salary (55%) paid to out pro bono and public services coordinator. Beginning in february 2015, the association now asks that the lawyers who accept cases through the lrs program to pay the bar association a 10% fee of all monies collected to aid in offsetting more of the program costs. This program is intended primarily as a community service, rather than an important source of revenue.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 95% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • 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: NotApplicable
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.7%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.24; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.6%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $143K · 23 people listed
  • Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.