Lavender Rights Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810969007
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2066397955
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Legal Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,967,987
Expenses
$3,156,302
Assets
$5,324,943
Liabilities
$335,529

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jaelynn Scott (Executive Director)
  • Aries Dial (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jaelynn Scott (Executive Director): $194,937 total reported compensation
  • Bryanna Jenkins (Policy Director): $128,710 total reported compensation
  • Akoth Ombaka (Director of Operations): $128,334 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Lavender Rights Project elevates the power, autonomy, and leadership of the black intersex & gender diverse community through intersectional legal and social services. We utilize the law as an organizing principle to affirm our civil rights and self-determination. Our organization disrupts oppressive systems that target black gender diverse and intersex communities of color and lead to disproportionate levels of poverty, housing disparities, and gender-based violence, especially among black and indigenous people.

What it reported doing in 2024

Policy and Communications: Coordinated local and national coalitions to support policy development at the State level; advised on federal policy initiatives; expanded digital communications and community campaigns; hosted events to support dialogue and cultural engagement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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 - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.8%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 63.7%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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: 69.4%; rating input score 69; 18th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.5%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.69; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.6%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.8% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 26.9% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 39.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.8% of revenue deployed · 63.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $195K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $121K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.