National Employment Lawyers Assoc Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311175826
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Concord, CA, USA
Phone
4152967629
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,866,419
Expenses
$1,747,578
Assets
$1,019,589
Liabilities
$238,971

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • M Nieves Bolaos (President)
  • Ben Lebsack (Vice President)
  • Mark Hanna (Vice President)
  • Bryce Ashby (Vice President)
  • Deborah Karpatkin (Vice President)
  • Carla D Brown (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Karen Y Maoki (Executive Dir.): $160,760 total reported compensation
  • Tacarra A Andrade (Membership Director): $118,647 total reported compensation
  • Peter A Valverde (Digital Comms & Tech Manager): $117,189 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 national employment lawyers association's (nela) mission is to empower workers' rights attorneys through legal training, promoting a fair judiciary, and advocating for laws and policies that level the playing field for workers. We aspire to a future in which all workers are treated with dignity and respect; workplaces are equitable, diverse, and inclusive; and the wellbeing of workers is a priority in business practices.

What it reported doing in 2024

Nela's continuing legal education programs provide exceptional training and networking opportunities for plaintiffs' employment lawyers. In addition to the annual convention and seminars, our biennial trial boot camp and wage & hour seminar help workers' rights attorneys become stronger advocates for their clients.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.4%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $161K · 26 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.