Philadelphia Vip Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232210390
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Phone
2155239550
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Legal Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,436,654
Expenses
$2,200,758
Assets
$3,581,283
Liabilities
$480,064

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

Leadership & pay

32 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHANDA A MILLER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • RIDA HAQ (EXECUTIVE DI): $151,174 total reported compensation
  • KELLY GASTLEY (MANAGING ATT): $106,942 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Philadelphia vip leverages the powerful resources of the community to provide quality volunteer legal services and ensure access to justice for low-income philadelphians.

What it reported doing in 2025

Line 4a, program service ------------------------ philadelphia vip has a 44-year history as the only legal aid organization in philadelphia dedicated to securing pro bono legal assistance for low- income individuals, families, small businesses, and nonprofits. Vip was created in 1981 as a joint venture between the philadelphia bar association, public interest legal community, and private bar to address an overflow of civil cases that could not be absorbed by legal services organizations, and implicated essential needs like housing, income, and family composition. To this day, vip fills an essential "agency of last resort" role for low-income philadelphians facing critical legal problems who are unable to receive legal assistance elsewhere. Vip's core activity is recruiting, training, and providing on-going support to its large, diverse community of volunteer attorneys who advise and represent vip's low-income clients pro bono (i.e., at no charge). Vip represents clients in four priority service areas: (1) preventing homelessness, (2) supporting family stability, (3) preserving income, and (4) promoting community economic development. The majority of vip's cases are referred by its sister organizations, community legal services and philadelphia legal assistance. An additional number come from peer organizations throughout philadelphia or other sources. To qualify for free legal assistance, vip's clients must be residents of philadelphia with income at or below 300% (400% for small business owners) of the federally-defined poverty level. Vip is an agency of last resort, such that clients have not been able to receive legal assistance elsewhere, including because the client's particular need is not handled by other legal services organizations. Vip's clients hail from all parts of philadelphia and include many demographic categories. The largest constituencies among clients represented in 2025 included: people of color (71%), women (66%), seniors over the age of 60 (40%), and disabled (36%). By leveraging the resources of volunteers vip served 1,858 cases in 2025, impacting 3,103 people, 987 of them children. Vip recruits, trains, mentors, and provides ongoing support for thousands of professionals throughout philadelphia to provide pro bono legal services to vip's low- income clients. By maintaining a large and diverse bank of volunteers, vip responds to otherwise unmet legal needs on a scale far exceeding what an organization's staff could accomplish on its own within the same budget parameters.

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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 87.2%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $27.49 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th 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: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • 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: 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: 9.7%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.63; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.7%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.3% of revenue deployed · 87.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $151K · 32 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.