Law SchoolYes We Can

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473260929
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3033333363
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$220,214
Expenses
$179,776
Assets
$264,934
Liabilities
$240

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MIKO BROWN (PRESIDENT)
  • RYAN TSENG (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DR KIMBERLE JACKSON-BUTLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR KIMBERLE JACKSON-BUTLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $94,333 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 increase diversity in the legal profession in Colorado and to develop tomorrow's diverse leaders in their professional careers. Law school yes we can worked with over 300 current mentors, supported over 100 lsywc fellows & connected with over 50 lsywc alumni fellows.

What it reported doing in 2024

Background-lsywc was founded to improve diversity in the legal profession. It is the first law school diversity pipeline program of its kind in Colorado, a program that targets hard working college students from diverse backgrounds: 68% of our fellows are first generation college students and 35% are first-generation high school graduates. Each year, lsywc selects up to 25 rising college students as fellows. Lsywc matches each fellow with three mentors: one senior level judge or attorney, one mid-level attorney, and one law student. These mentors make a commitment to guide their fellows throughout college with the goal of helping them receive admission to the law school or graduate school of their choice. Lsywc provides fellows with valuable skill-building workshops and facilitates exposure opportunities to prepare fellows for success as future community and business leaders. We provide resources for fellows to take the meyers briggs type indicator (mbti) & emotional intelligence tests to assist in their professional development. All fellows also attend a mini law school presented by cu law. We arrange scholarships for fellows to take baseline lsat tests, lsat preparation courses, and other pre-law workshops, some of which are presented by lsywc board members, and others, by professors from cu law and du law. Our impact is centered around: (1) access to equitable opportunities for our fellows, (2) mentors who share their hurdles and successes in a system not necessarily designed for diversity, (3) the creation of a community focused on a shared mission, (4) outreach through recruitment, programming, and community events, and (5) support from lsywc sponsors and their networks. This means that acquiring a single new sponsor or fellow (and mentor team) can have a cascading effect in creating awareness and change within the Colorado community. During 2024, lsywc amassed approximately 40,000 volunteer hours, delivered over 20 lsywc workshops, supported over 300 mentors, mentored over 100 fellows & connected with over 30 judicial mentors across the nation, incuding five of the seven Colorado supreme court justices. Lsywc helped facilitate 17 internships in various stages of law school with 5 alumni fellows graduating from law school. There is an 83% retention rate within the program and a 97% college graduation rate. The continuing partnership with the denver law firm coalition for racial equity provides financial and in-kind support to our program for the next three years. Mission: the mission of lsywc is to diversify the Colorado legal profession by furthering the legal education of hard working, low income, and diverse college students. The lsywc curriculum promotes the pre-law education and personal development of its fellows. Each lsywc fellow has a mentor team that helps guide fellows through college and the pre-law admissions process. Population served: lsywc serves a diverse, low-income group of students in our community. Most of our students are from single parent, low income, immigrant communities. The lsywc overall fellow race/ethnicity is 63% hispanic/latinx, 19% black, 10% white, 5% asian, and 3% native american/american indian. The lsywc overall gender is 20% male and 80% female.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38.8%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 47.5%; rating input score 48
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.4%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.47; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 52.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.3% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.8% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38.8% of revenue deployed · 47.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $85K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $94K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.