Rising for Justice Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
520847160
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026384798
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,976,518
Expenses
$3,054,901
Assets
$3,746,302
Liabilities
$2,021,661

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HELEN DOOLEY (PRESIDENT)
  • CURTIS LU (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CHIJIOKE AKAMIGBO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHIJIOKE AKAMIGBO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $181,252 total reported compensation
  • CHAZ J KOHLRIESER (DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WORK): $127,896 total reported compensation
  • ANDREW W RABINOWITZ (DIRECTOR OF TENANT JUSTICE PROGRAM): $126,925 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of rising for justice is to leverage the collective forces of law students and social work students who work along with our experienced attorneys to achieve justice for our clients. We directly represent individuals who cannot afford counsel before the district of columbia courts and various administrative agencies. We train law students from area law schools in trial advocacy and other lawyering skills and seek to instill in them a commitment to pro bono service. We also serve as a field placement for graduate students from msw programs who work on teams with our law students and attorneys to serve the social services needs of our clients through an interdisciplinary approach to client representation.

What it reported doing in 2025

Housing program: rising for justice (rfj) advances housing stability and prevents eviction through its housing advocacy and litigation clinic (halc), stabilizing communities (stabcomm) program, and tenant justice program (tjp). Together, these initiatives provide critical legal representation and social-work support to low-income dc residents facing eviction, unsafe housing conditions, or barriers to stable housing. Dc's ongoing housing crisis, marked by soaring rents, loss of affordable units, and widening racial disparities, has left many tenants vulnerable to displacement and homelessness.rfj's unique position as the sole legal services provider in dc offering immediate legal advice and eviction defense in the landlord and tenant branch of dc superior court underscores the urgency and significance of its work. Attorneys, law students, and social workers conduct in-person intake at the courthouse, assess each tenant's legal and social needs, and provide advice, brief services, or extended representation. Rfj's interdisciplinary model combines courtroom advocacy with holistic case management, connecting clients to rental assistance, food security programs, mental-health care, and other supports that strengthen long-term stability.in fy 2025, rfj and its partners represented thousands of tenants citywide, helping families avoid eviction, negotiate fair settlements, and remain safely housed. Through outreach, systemic advocacy, and litigation, these programs address both individual crises and the structural inequities driving dc's housing emergency. By pairing legal defense with social work intervention, rfj ensures that dc's most vulnerable residents have a fair chance to preserve their homes and rebuild stability.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.4%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 86.8%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.6%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.23; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.54; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.4% of revenue deployed · 86.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $181K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $105K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.