Public Defender of Marion County

Legal name: Public Defender of Marion County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205797920
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Salem, OR, US
Phone
+1 (503) 480-0521
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,408,206
Expenses
$5,529,381
Assets
$2,642,345
Liabilities
$396,870

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Viktoria Lo (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Shannon Wilson (Executive Dir.): $176,334 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Everyone deserves quality legal representation, whether they can afford a lawyer or not.

What it reported doing in 2024

Employed attorneys and necessary support staff to represent public defense, civil commitment and psychiatric security review board clients in matters in which they are entitled to appointed counsel. During 2021, the public defender of marion county opened 1,888 cases in marion county and continued to be a vital component in indigent criminal defense in marion county. Implemented jedi justice, equality, diversity and inclusion training for entire office.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.5%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 92.2%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.2%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.2%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 93.5% of revenue deployed · 92.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $176K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.