Demand Justice Initiative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
863690047
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2029684512
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Crime, Legal Related N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,258,400
Expenses
$2,315,091
Assets
$7,559,781
Liabilities
$660,812

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JAY WILLIS (EDITOR IN CHIEF, BALLS STRIIKES): $186,752 total reported compensation
  • LANITA KING (SENIOR DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS): $144,489 total reported compensation
  • MADIBA DENNIE (DEPUTY EDITOR SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR, BALLS STRIKES): $107,308 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Demand justice initiative dji seeks to educate and engage the public about the importance of a fair and independent judiciary in maintaining a healthy democracy. Continued on schedule o.

What it reported doing in 2024

As part of its judicial accountabililty work, demand justice initiative hosts events and programming to inform the public on notable rulings and on the backgrounds of certain judges at every level of the judiciary. This work lifts up individuals and groups impacted by judicial decisions to show the practical implications of the current state of federal jurisprudence. We also bring together experts to discuss transparency and ethics concerns related to the functioning of the judiciary, including the ability of the supreme court to operate without any meaningful oversight or checks on potential conflicts of interest.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 25.2%; rating input score 25
  • Program expense ratio: 79%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $116.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: 68.1%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.27; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.5%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.8% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 34.4% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 68.7% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 25.2% of revenue deployed · 79% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $187K · 6 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 25/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.