Justice Information Resource Network Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521130140
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2028429330
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Administration of Justice, Courts

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,518,038
Expenses
$3,530,059
Assets
$733,213
Liabilities
$922,854

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • George Shaler (President)
  • Stephen M Haas PhD (Vice President)
  • Jeffrey Sedgwick (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jeffrey Sedgwick (Executive Director): $191,240 total reported compensation
  • Susan Smith Howley (Project Manager): $159,014 total reported compensation
  • Audrey Fleming (Finance Director): $126,121 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 promote the effective and efficient administration of criminal and juvenile justice through the objective analysis of data and the dissemination of research that informs policy and practice.

What it reported doing in 2024

Criminal and juvenile justice training and technical assistance projects for federal, state and local criminal and juvenile justice agencies: JIRN is creating a resource center website to provide information on victim-related research, evaluation, and evidence-based practices to victim services providers across the country; prepares an electronic digest of Justice issues in the states and an online electronic newsletter highlighting criminal and juvenile justice issues; maintains an electronic database of state research and activities; and develops and delivers webinars on performance measurements, evaluation and evidence-based practices.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 98% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 62% for direct work, and 38% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.7%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 83.5%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 41st 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: 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.3%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.21; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.26; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.5%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.7% of revenue deployed · 83.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $191K · 9 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.