Los Angeles County Bar Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952555546
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2138966409
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$120,276
Expenses
$1,736,290
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

48 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICIA EGAN DAEHNKE (LACBA PRESIDENT)
  • LINDA CURTIS (LACBA PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • PAUL R KIESEL (LACBA SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARGARET P STEVENS (LACBA VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RICHARD J BURDGE JR (LACBA IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • LAURA A SEIGLE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SALLY SUCHIL (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $358,734 total reported compensation
  • BRUCE BERRA (CHIEF FINANCIAL & ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER): $201,198 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve the administration of justice, the delivery of legal services to cultivate understanding of and respect for the rule of law, and to render assistance to the poor, neglected and the most vulnerable.

What it reported doing in 2014

Grants to law-related charitable 501(c)(3) non profit organizations are awarded annually. Grants range from $1,000 to $88,255. All grants allocated run for a full 12 months. The foundation requires a semi-annual report from each grantee. This report is reviewed by a member of the board of directors which ties to the grantees' original request for funds. If any problems surface, there are still 6 months to make corrections. The board member can also recommend, or not, that funding should be considered for the next funding cycle, if the grantee does apply again. The foundation does not ask for specific data from its grantees. The evaluation form is narrative. The board member asks: 1) was the grant used for the purposes intended? 2) did the grantee meet or make progress toward its goal as specified in the application?

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 93%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th 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: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1,343.6%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -42.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -100% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 46 of 46 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $359K · 48 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2012 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.