Legal Assistance to the Elderly
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 942391538
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Phone
- 4155383333
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Legal Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,426,856
- Expenses
- $5,392,457
- Assets
- $3,769,042
- Liabilities
- $2,400,963
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jennifer Johnson (President)
- Donna Seid (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Laura Chiera (Executive Dir.): $169,982 total reported compensation
- Thomas Drohan (Director of Litigation): $150,062 total reported compensation
- Cathy Mosbrucker (Managing Attorneys): $134,700 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
LAE's mission is to protect and advance the right of San Franciscos seniors and adults with disabilities to be housed, healthy, financially stable, and safe. We provide free legal services to San Francisco seniors and adults with disabilities living in San Francisco.
What it reported doing in 2024
LAE's mission is to protect and advance the right of San Franciscos seniors and adults with disabilities to be housed, healthy, financially stable, and safe. We provide free legal services to San Francisco seniors and adults with disabilities living in San Francisco. During the 2024-25 fiscal year Legal Assistance to the Elderly provided legal advice and/or representation to over 1850 clients. Most clients are long-term San Francisco residents, who have given decades of their lives to making the city the vibrant and diverse place that it is today. Our client base in 2024-25 was a majority BIPOC: 21% Asian, 17% African American/Black, 16% Latinx, 1% Native American, 4% Other and 41% White. About 90% of our clients are seniors and 10% are adults with disabilities. A majority of our clients identify as women (54%) and 11% identify as LGBTQ. About 60% of our clients are living with a disability and 13% are homebound or in a medical facility. Twenty percent of clients are non-English speakers: primarily monolingual Chinese speakers and monolingual Spanish speakers. Our clients are also overwhelmingly low income: 55% of our clients have incomes of less than $1,650 per month (or 125% of the Federal Poverty level). Using HUDs income levels for San Francisco, 95% of our clients are considered very low or extremely low-income. This financial vulnerability means that our clients are often separated from homelessness or institutionalization only by the loss of one paycheck or benefit check, or by a worsening health condition. During this fiscal year we have assisted clients in the legal areas including: housing preservation/eviction defense, end of life planning, consumer debt defense, healthcare advocacy, income maintenance/ public benefits (Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, pensions, etc.), physical and financial abuse protection and CARE Court representation. Last year, we were also funded as the lead agency for the Excelsior Legal Collaborative (ELC), which provided legal services to San Francisco's Southwest Neighborhoods and focuses its work on housing preservation/eviction defense, workers' rights, and immigration.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 91% 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
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 78
- Transparency & Controls: 70
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 29
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.8%; rating input score 81
- Program expense ratio: 81.3%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: $18.49 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.6%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.64; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 12.9%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 20.5% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 26.1% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 80.8% of revenue deployed · 81.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $170K · 17 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.