National Foundation For Judicial Reform

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271162323
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2010
Forms available
Form 990 2010
Location
Charlotte, NC, USA
Phone
7046070353
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,893
Expenses
$258,080
Assets
$32,883
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Activities include research on historical legal cases in family courts to determine if judges are showing a bias or favortism towards one party or another and education for lawyers and judges circled around ethics through theatrical plays.

What it reported doing in 2010

Conducted research in the Charlotte, NC court system of Mecklenburg county to begin to identify possible inconsistencies with judge rulings in the family court system to identify non-compliance with impartiality and to pursue those avenues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1,135.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.13; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $227K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $6K · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.