Pine Tree Legal Assistance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010279387
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Portland, ME, USA
Phone
2077744753
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Legal Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,135,661
Expenses
$11,040,521
Assets
$10,228,993
Liabilities
$1,569,733

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WENDY HARLAN ESQ (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS FRITZSCHE (EXECUTIVE DI): $168,509 total reported compensation
  • CHET RANDALL (DEPUTY DIREC): $143,029 total reported compensation
  • NECIA ENOCH (FINANCE DIRE): $133,430 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 mission of pine tree legal assistance is to ensure that state and federal laws affecting poor people are upheld, while also addressing the systemic barriers to justice faced by mainers with low incomes. To achieve this mission, pine tree provides free civil legal assistance in cases where it can make a difference in one's ability to meet one's basic human needs or in enforcing one's basic human rights, including access to housing, food, income, safety, education, and healthcare.

What it reported doing in 2024

Technology grant - to promote full access and high-quality legal representation through the use of technology expenses 85,278 including grants of 0 revenue 0 veterans consortium - supports the work of the statewide legal website. Expenses 35,000 including grants of 0 revenue 0 pro bono innovation fund expenses 144,020 including grants of 0 revenue 0

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 75% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.2%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 80.7%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $41.88 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 35%; rating input score 35; 10th 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; 66th 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: 16%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.93; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.3%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.2% of revenue deployed · 80.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $8.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $169K · 29 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.