North Suburban Legal Aid Clinic

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472859426
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Highland Park, IL, USA
Phone
8477374042
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Legal Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,676,994
Expenses
$4,809,643
Assets
$3,434,455
Liabilities
$116,962

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • SUSAN SHULMAN (EXECUTIVE DI): $135,137 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

North suburban legal aid clinic's mission is to provide accessible, quality, equitable, free legal services in the areas of domestic violence, housing, and immigration to give low-income, at-risk community members access to justice and the opportunity to live productive and secure lives.

What it reported doing in 2025

North suburban legal aid clinic (nslac) provides free legal services to low -income, at-risk clients in the practice areas of immigration, housing, and domestic violence. Clients served by nslac's housing and immigration practives must live at or below 250% of the federal poverty level. There are no income restrictions for survivors supported by the domestic violence practice, as a client in crisis may not have access to familial assets. Nslac serves clients living in lake county and the northern suburbs of cook county. Specifically, nslac's service area includes geography covered by the rolling meadows and skokie courthouses in northern cook county, and the waukegan courthouse in lake county.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 67% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.3%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 28.5% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27.8% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 31.5% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $135K · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.