Fund for Justice
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237059214
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Chicago, IL, USA
- Phone
- 7735129175
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fund Raising and Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $965,316
- Expenses
- $840,880
- Assets
- $311,367
- Liabilities
- $48,664
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
39 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Roger Lewis (President)
- Malcolm Rich (Executive Director)
- Naomi Johnson (Co-Executive Director)
- Stephanie Agnew (Co-Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Stephanie Agnew (Co-Executive Director): $79,468 total reported compensation
- Naomi Johnson (Co-Executive Director): $79,379 total reported compensation
- Malcolm Rich (Executive Director): $28,500 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Fund for Justice is a nationally connected social impact research and advocacy organization that works to achieve fundamental, systemic reform by addressing policies and practicies that prevent individuals from reaching their full potential. We focus on social justice and government effectiveness ranging from fair criminal justice systems to equal access in financial institutions.
What it reported doing in 2024
Criminal Justice Reform - Research and advocacy related to creating a diversion section within the Cook County Criminal Courts to provide a coordinated, more effective system of diverting defendants out of the criminal justice system and, in the process, reduce the population of the Cook County jail. Reducing the imposition of court costs, fines and fees on indigent persons. Immigration Court Reform - Court watching and development of a research report on the way bond hearings should be conducted in immigration courts. Voter Education in Judicial Elections - Preparing for a more user friendly, more effective judicial voter education system.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.
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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 55
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 55.5%; rating input score 55
- Program expense ratio: 63.7%; rating input score 64
- Fundraising efficiency: $8.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 12.9%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 22.3%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 55.5% of revenue deployed · 63.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $536K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $79K · 39 people listed
- Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.