Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network

Legal name: Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network Inc Fka/ Pennsylvania Legal Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231892464
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Harrisburg, PA, USA
Phone
7172369486
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$50,228,387
Expenses
$50,111,739
Assets
$7,617,540
Liabilities
$6,246,708

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • REGINA M FOLEY ESQ (PRESIDENT)
  • SONIA BROOKINS (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • MAX W LAUN ESQ (PRESIDENT EMERITUS)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHANNON SHAFFER (DIR. OF FINANCE THROUGH FEB 2025): $196,877 total reported compensation
  • MEREDITH RAPKIN (EXEECUTIVE DIRECTOR BEGINNING DEC 24): $19,859 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 Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network is a statewide consortium of independent legal aid programs that provides civil legal services to low-income individuals and families across Pennsylvania.

What it reported doing in 2024

The funding administered by Pennsylvania legal aid network was used to provide legal assistance to the poor in all counties of Pennsylvania. Service was provided in 80,910 cases.consumer 6,514employment 6,645family 21,125health 4,054housing 27,136public benefits 7,867other 7,569 a breakout of the cases handled by major case type follows: 26.1 percent of our cases involved family matters, 33.5 percent involved shelter housing issues, 9.7 percent involved public benefits, 8.2 percent involved employment issues, 8.1 percent involved consumer issues, 5 percent involved health issues, and 9.4 percent involved other issues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.1%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 96.2%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: 0.2%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.15; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.82; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.4%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 96.1% of revenue deployed · 96.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $48.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $197K · 17 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $135K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 12 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.
  • 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 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.