Global Justice Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208734461
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2127256530
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Women's Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$680,859
Expenses
$1,084,064
Assets
$1,153,932
Liabilities
$281,423

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELISE KEPPLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BEGINNI)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELISE KEPPLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BEGINNI): $213,934 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Global justice center is a legal human rights organization that uses international law to achieve gender equality and dismantle systems of oppression.

What it reported doing in 2024

Fighting for sexual and reproductive rights(see schedule o for additional information.)fighting for sexual and reproductive rights1. Co-filed a submission for the universal periodic review of the united states detailing the deteriorating state of bodily and reproductive autonomy in the u.s. Gjc later shared this submission with the un special rapporteur on the right to health.2.co-filed an amicus brief challenging Idaho's abortion ban as a human rights violation in the case united states v. Idaho, building upon a previous brief submitted to the supreme court.3. Met with diplomats in geneva ahead of the universal periodic review of the united states to bring further attention to threats to reproductive and bodily autonomy in the country.4. Published a q&a with the un working group on discrimination against women and girls that explain how international law protects abortion in cases of "conscientious objection."5.hosted the first webinar in a series examining conscientious objection and its impact on abortion access that featured international experts and reproductive health stakeholders.6. Co-organized a side-event during the annual conference commission on the status of women that explored the right to conscience and abortion care.7. Filed a joint submission with the un special rapporteur on violence against women and girls that called for a human rights-based approach to surrogacy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 65.4%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 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: -59.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.7%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 65.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $709K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $214K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.