Louisiana Bar Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237100704
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New Orleans, LA, USA
Phone
504-561-1046
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$30,547,181
Expenses
$18,507,828
Assets
$54,775,199
Liabilities
$10,242,306

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAURA C SEWELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DEIDRE D ROBERT (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • HON JOHN C DAVIDSON (PRESIDENT)
  • EDMUND J GIERING IV (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DONNA C CUNEO (IMMEDIATE PAST EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LAURA C SEWELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $244,130 total reported compensation
  • DONNA C CUNEO (IMMEDIATE PAST EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $206,478 total reported compensation
  • DENNETTE YOUNG (CCO): $161,947 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 ensure that all Louisianans – regardless of their zip code, background or income level – have access to the civil legal services they need.

What it reported doing in 2024

Department of the treasury, state of Louisiana cooperative endeavor agreement (cea): the scope of the cea is 1. [to] provide legal representation of children in child protection cases in partnership with legal services corporations, the Louisiana department of child and family services, and the Louisiana supreme court and; 2. Resolve legal problems of low income people; strengthen communities by servicing special populations including veterans, homeless, disaster survivors, domestic violence victims, and seniors; develop the best public interest law firms possible.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 95% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.7%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 93.3%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $46.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 99.8%; rating input score 100; 37th 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; 66th 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: 39.4%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.96; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 58.7% of revenue deployed · 93.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $17.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $244K · 27 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls 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: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 66 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 60 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.