Peace and Justice Law Center

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization's largest program service by expense is its Human and Civil Rights Defense Program. Through public-interest litigation, legal advocacy, and related pro bono legal assistance, the program protects civil rights, promotes government accountability, combats discrimination, and advances public safety and community well-being. Most clients are indigent individuals or nonprofit organizations and have no financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. Attorney fees are sought only when authorized by applicable fee-shifting statutes and are payable by opposing parties rather than clients. In 2025, the organization concluded Chicanxs Unidxs v. Spitzer, a public-records action brought on behalf of three nonprofit organizations seeking prosecutorial records necessary to enforce the California Racial Justice Act. The litigation advanced public access to government information and efforts to eliminate racial discrimination in the criminal legal system. Attorney fees were awarded pursuant to the fee-shifting provisions of the California Public Records Act. The organization also continued litigation challenging Orange County's longstanding gang-injunction practices in People v. Townsend Street. The litigation seeks injunctive relief to reduce discriminatory enforcement practices, protect constitutional rights, and limit reliance on punitive strategies that destabilize communities and contribute to youth involvement in the criminal legal system. The organization represented multiple indigent defendants without charge. No attorney fees were sought for this work in 2025. The organization also continued litigating ACLU v. Inglewood Police Department, a public-records action seeking disclosure of police-misconduct records. The litigation promotes government transparency, police accountability, and enforcement of civil rights protections. No attorney fees were awarded in 2025. The organization also engaged in non-litigation work. The organization represented the unincorporated association Los Amigos de Orange County in pre-litigation discussions with a third party threatening a defamation lawsuit. The representation supported community advocacy and the exercise of constitutional rights and was provided without charge. The organization also advised the nonprofit organization Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice regarding legal issues arising from its immigration-court observation program. This work was provided without charge and advanced the protection of civil rights and public participation in the justice system. During 2025, the organization concluded one major litigation matter, continued two additional public-interest lawsuits, represented three nonprofit organizations, multiple indigent defendants, one unincorporated association, and one nonprofit organization in advisory matters, all without charge to the clients. Through these litigation and advisory matters, the organization advanced civil rights, promoted government transparency and accountability, and provided legal services without charge to individuals and nonprofit organizations engaged in public-interest activities.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
• Program expense ratio: 84.6%; rating input score 85
• Fundraising efficiency: $9.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
  • Compensation committee: Missing
  • Independent consultant: Missing
  • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
  • Written employment contract: Pass
  • 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: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 21st percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Fail
  • 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: Missing
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

• Operating margin: -29%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 47.8%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 28.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 25.9% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings