School Justice Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461625412
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026569136
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Law, Jurisprudence

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,685,024
Expenses
$1,390,983
Assets
$2,397,287
Liabilities
$58,547

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CLAIRE BLUMENSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CO-FOUNDER)

Highest reported compensation

  • CLAIRE BLUMENSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CO-FOUNDER): $136,574 total reported compensation
  • TAYO BELLE (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $122,357 total reported compensation
  • AUBREY DILLON (MANAGING ATTORNEY): $120,222 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

School justice project (sjp) is a legal services and advocacy organization serving older students with special education needs who are involved in dc's justice systems. Sjp's mission is to use special education law to ensure that older, court-involved students with disabilities can access a quality education. We envision a country where all students have meaningful access to a quality education. Sjp's education attorneys work with their clients to protect and enforce special education rights.

What it reported doing in 2025

Systemic advocacy & policy program: sjp works to change the policy framework in which students' education services are delivered. Through advocacy, high impact litigation, partnerships, and coalition building, sjp works to identify the sources of the problems that push students with disabilities from school to prison. Through experience and lessons learned from sjp's direct representation program, sjp works to identify and propose solutions to dismantle key barriers to education attainment. This program strives to address lack of access to resources and programs for older, court-involved students with disabilities as well as the system-wide lack of enforcement of special education law. The specific purposes of this program include: 1) highlighting interagency gaps; 2) framing the problem and disseminating solutions; 3) collaborating with stakeholders to identify and implement solutions; and 4) improving educational outcomes through broad-based policy and legal reform.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.6%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $30.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th 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: 17.5%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.72; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.6% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $137K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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 — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.