International Senior Lawyers'corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522241212
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6463501554
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$981,866
Expenses
$1,270,886
Assets
$1,132,715
Liabilities
$169,862

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARA LULO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARA LULO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $256,622 total reported compensation
  • AIKATERINA DRISI (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $139,607 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Islp is a nonpartisan, politically neutral nonprofit organization that mobilizes international pro bono legal support to promote the rule of law and accountable, sustainable global economic development.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, islp undertook 118 projects in more than 34 jurisdictions and volunteers donated 10,053 pro bono hours valued at approximately $10.8 million. A significant part of islp's mission is achieved through the receipt of contributed legal services from lawyers and law firms, these contributed non-financial assets are valued based on fair market value of the services received.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.4%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 61%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -29.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.89; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.2%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.4% of revenue deployed · 61% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $775K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $257K · 27 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.