Lafayette Bar Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581606820
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lafayette, LA, USA
Phone
3372374700
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$564,911
Expenses
$530,153
Assets
$699,551
Liabilities
$37,173

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STUART BREAUX (PRESIDENT)
  • TREY HIGHTOWER (PRESIDENT - ELECT)
  • LINDSAY MEADOR YOUNG (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • JAN SWIFT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • PAM LANDAICHE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAM LANDAICHE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $52,738 total reported compensation
  • JAN SWIFT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $11,566 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

It is the mission of the lba to serve members and the community by promoting justice, professional excellence, and fellowship among attorneys and the court. We strive to help members through high-quality programming.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mediation and arbitration income comes from attorneys, firms, or court reporters who rent the mediation center rooms out for the day. The goal of the center is to provide users the opportunity to settle their disputes in an informal and confidential setting. Rather than having to litigate in court, the center lets parties gather in a geographically central location in a cost and time-effective way. This convenience, coupled with helpful support staff and state-of-the-art amenities, fosters collaborative and productive neutrality.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 75% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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

MIXED - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 36.9%; rating input score 37
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.2%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.32; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.1%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37% of revenue deployed · 36.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $196K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $53K · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 37/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.