New Jersey State Bar Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
226074475
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Phone
7322495000
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,394,542
Expenses
$6,834,546
Assets
$17,777,494
Liabilities
$502,953

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANGELA C SCHECK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • Charles J Stoia (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • Thomas J Manzo Esq (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • Ralph J Lamparello (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANGELA C SCHECK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $311,553 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 mission of the organization is to: - foster an increased awareness, appreciation and knowledge of law and the legal system among New Jersey residents; - serve as the statewide resource for law-related education for the public; - provide opportunities for lawyers to serve the public through the foundation's programs; and - foster professionalism and pride in the profession of law through public service. Founded in 1958, the New Jersey state bar foundation is the charitable and educational foundation of the New Jersey state bar association. The purpose of the organization is to carry out the charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes of New Jersey state bar association and others in the areas of the profession of law and the administration of justice. The organization offers free and comprehensive public education programs. In addition to its public and school-based activities, the organization presents law-related seminars, conducts conflict resolution training, publi

What it reported doing in 2024

Core education programs - provide law-related and violence prevention education to the public through trainings, seminars, workshops, video-loan-library, publications and speaker's bureau.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 assets have declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.2%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 89.5%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $93.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th 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; 72nd 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: 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: 27.2%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.6; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.2% of revenue deployed · 89.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 26 of 26 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $6.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $312K · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 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: 39 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 40 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 — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.