Legal Aid Services of Oregon

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930635480
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5034711140
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,581,987
Expenses
$13,606,573
Assets
$9,596,752
Liabilities
$4,339,973

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • IVAN RESENDIZ GUTIERREZ (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • SARA GRAY (BOARD VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JEREMY RYAN ALIASON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANGELICA VEGA (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $160,051 total reported compensation
  • JEREMY RYAN ALIASON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $157,716 total reported compensation
  • FABIO APOLITO (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $154,166 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The primary purpose of legal aid services of Oregon shall be to achieve justice for the low-income communities of Oregon by providing a full range of the highest quality civil legal services.

What it reported doing in 2024

Legal aid services of Oregon (laso) is a non-profit organization that provides representation on civil cases to low-income clients throughout the state of Oregon. In addition, two statewide programs provide legal services to farmworkers and representation on native american issues in state and tribal courts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 85% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.2%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 85.9%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $32,531.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.7%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.7%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.2% of revenue deployed · 85.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $11.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 22 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $627K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.