Kentucky Youth Law Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465170220
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Lexington, KY, USA
Phone
8442200226
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Lesbian, Gay Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$53,368
Expenses
$29,428
Assets
$26,286

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Keith Doniphan Elston (Director)
  • Dan Beasley (Director)
  • Dr Aaron Brown (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Over the past two years, the Kentucky Youth Law Project (KYLP) has served as the primary legal shield for LGBTQ+ youth across the Commonwealth. In a climate of unprecedented legislative challenges and judicial shifts, our mission has never been more critical.

What it reported doing in 2025

Our key achievements for 2025 include securing major funding through a grant from the Charles and Jack Fund. This award allows the organization to expand free legal services into rural Kentucky. The organization also successfully appealed cases to protect the privacy of transgender youth during name changing proceedings. The organization built a specialized legal framework to help medical providers quash subpeonas seeking the private medical records of minors receiving gender-affirming care. The organization also evaluated 15 pieces of state and federal legislation, providing legal expertise necessary to inform the public and advocate against discriminatory mandates.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 44.9%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.89; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 47.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 50.9% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.