Hawaii Justice Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237047345
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Honolulu, HI, USA
Phone
8085373886
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Legal Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,040,685
Expenses
$3,720,217
Assets
$15,053,701
Liabilities
$32,223

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM HUNT (PRESIDENT)
  • GARY SLOVIN (PRESIDENT-EL)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT J LECLAIR (EXECUTIVE DI): $125,654 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To facilitate the public's knowledge and understanding of the law, provide legal aid to the poor and improve the administration of justice.

What it reported doing in 2024

Interest on lawyers' trust account (iolta) program and indigent legal assistance fund (ilaf) program: under the iolta program, interest earned on funds retained by lawyers in trust for their clients is used by the foundation for legal assistance to the poor, improving the program administration of justice, and other programs for the benefit of the public as specifically approved by the supreme court of Hawaii for exclusive public purposes. Effective july 1, 1991, supreme court rule 11 required mandatory participation in the iolta program by all attorneys licensed to practice in the state of Hawaii. Under the ilaf program, the foundation serves as the ilaf adminstrator and oversees the process where surcharges are collected on certain filing fees in the state of Hawaii judicial system. These funds are retained by the judiciary for distribution to qualified low-income service providers under the statutory formula.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as 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: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.1%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 94%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 77.7%; rating input score 78; 21st 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 47.2%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.05; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.4%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.3% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.1% of revenue deployed · 94% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $126K · 24 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $126K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 28 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 25 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.