Lancaster Law Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
421551989
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Lancaster, PA, USA
Phone
7173930737
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Legal Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$156,096
Expenses
$110,834
Assets
$851,726
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AMANDA KOWALSKI ESQ (PRESIDENT)
  • ALICIA MUIR ESQ (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LISA M DRIENDL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • AMANDA KOWALSKI ESQ (PRESIDENT)
  • ALICIA MUIR ESQ (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN H MAY (TREASURER)

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

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

Overview

Mission

The lancaster law foundation promotes equal access to justice by funding nonprofit legal service organizations, supporting pro bono programs that provide direct legal assistance, and educating the public about legal rights and resources. Through its grantmaking and service initiatives, the foundation helps lancaster county residents - particularly low-income and underserved populations - navigate the legal system and access essential civil legal services.

What it reported doing in 2025

Community grants program: the lancaster law foundation awarded grants to nonprofit organizations that provide civil legal services and law-related programs to lancaster county residents. Funded initiatives improved access to justice, increased awareness of legal rights and resources, and supported services for low-income and underserved populations, including assistance with housing, family law matters, and other civil legal needs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45.2%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 57.7%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: $63.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 53rd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.68; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.5% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.3% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 45.2% of revenue deployed · 57.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $64K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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 45/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.