Northeast New Jersey Legal Services Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
221898061
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Jersey City, NJ, USA
Phone
2017926363
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$16,390,149
Expenses
$16,413,664
Assets
$12,248,388
Liabilities
$8,519,206

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

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LEAH ASHE ESQ (Executive Director)
  • JACK JAY WIND ESQ (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • GREGORY DIEBOLD ESQ (Director of Litigation): $261,102 total reported compensation
  • ANNA NAVATTA ESQ (Director Attorney): $241,995 total reported compensation
  • LEAH ASHE ESQ (Executive Director): $228,793 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 provide free legal representation to eligible low-income, disabled and senior residents of bergen, hudson and passaic counties in New Jersey.

What it reported doing in 2024

In the year ending june 30, 2025, nnjls provided direct legal assistance to over 14,300 persons in the area of housing, consumer issues, family issues and public benefit law matters. Nnjls also provided community-based legal education to over 10,000 low income residents of bergen, hudson and passaic counties.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 89% 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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.4%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 90.3%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $30.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 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: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.1%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.7; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.4% of revenue deployed · 90.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $261K · 30 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $495K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.