Shriver Center on Poverty Law

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN: 363151279
IRS 990 coverage: 2011–2024
Forms available: Form 990 2024
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Phone: 3122633830
Rating: 78
Verdict: SUPPORTED
Rating confidence: Moderate
Sector: Public Interest Law

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue: $5,129,189
Expenses: $6,398,168
Assets: $8,626,498
Liabilities: $3,824,305

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

AUDRA WILSON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

AUDRA WILSON (PRESIDENT): $249,103 total reported compensation
EDWARD K MBEWE (CFOO): $234,194 total reported compensation
LATANYA WILSON (VP OF ADVOCACY): $199,633 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 shriver center on poverty law (the shriver center) is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation that fights for racial and economic justice by advancing laws and policies that change people's lives.

What it reported doing in 2024

The shriver center's advocate resources and training program (art) trains lawyers, community organizers, and other activists to build the skills that are vital to advocacy for racial and economic justice. The shriver center convenes and connects advocates, community leaders, and activists across the country so that they can share ideas and resources and get the tools they need to work more effectively.

Operating model

Revenue model: Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model: Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

Financial Efficiency: 77
Transparency & Controls: 74
Accountability: 95
Sustainability: 20
Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

Mission deployment rate: 91.8%; rating input score 92
Program expense ratio: 73.6%; rating input score 74
Fundraising efficiency: $4.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- 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: 96%; rating input score 96; 31st 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: -24.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.35; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Officer compensation ratio: 25.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

Program expense growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

Where the money goes: 91.8% of revenue deployed · 73.6% of spending went to programs
Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $4.7M in reported program spending
Leadership: top reported pay $249K · 24 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $140K reported
Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
Contacts: How to reach this organization
Money network: 18 filed money-flow records
Related organizations: 8 filed related-organization links
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.

High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.