OneJustice

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942589423
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4158340100
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,024,630
Expenses
$2,762,914
Assets
$2,636,785
Liabilities
$923,382

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

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Phil Hwang (Chief Executive Officer)

Highest reported compensation

  • Phil Hwang (Chief Executive Officer): $223,857 total reported compensation
  • Gail Quan (Dir., Legal, Operations,& People): $192,234 total reported compensation
  • Amy Kaizuka (Program Director): $165,150 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

OneJustice's mission is to strengthen the legal services sector's expertise and capacity to advance justice and equity.

What it reported doing in 2024

Pro Bono Justice Program: OneJustice strengthened the effectiveness of legal services organizations and volunteers serving over 1 million low income individuals. OneJustice trained and advised immigration, consumer protection, and pro bono programs on maximizing their impact. Through its Pro Bono Training Institute, OneJustice has trained more than 13,000 volunteers. OneJustice's Pro Bono Conference and strategy meetings brought together legal services organizations and volunteers to improve how legal services are delivered and address emerging community needs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 78.9%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 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: -36.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.7%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 78.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $224K · 30 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $103K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.