State Justice Institute
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 621301780
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2010
- Forms available
- Form 990 2010
- Location
- Reston, VA, USA
- Phone
- 5713138843
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Management & Technical Assistance
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,258,760
- Expenses
- $5,087,638
- Assets
- $7,523,138
- Liabilities
- $7,097,006
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To award grants to improve the quality of justice in state courts and foster innovative and efficient solutions to common issues faced by all state courts.
What it reported doing in 2010
The state justice institute awards the following types of grants: partner grants, project grants, technical assistance (ta) grants, curriculum adaptation & training (cat) grants, and scholarships: project grants: are the centerpiece of sji's efforts to improve the administration of justice in state courts nationwide. Project grants are intended to support innovative technical assistance, education and training, and demonstration projects that can improve the administration of justice in state courts.partner grants: allow sji and federal, state, or local agencies or foundations, trusts, or other private entities to combine financial resources in pursuit of common interests.strategic initiatives grants: sji requested, and congress approved, the strategic initiatives grants (sig) program in fy 2008. This funding provides sji the flexibility to address national court issues as they occur, and develop solutions to those problems.technical assistance (ta) grants: are designed to provide state and local courts with funding to obtain expert assistance to diagnose a problem, develop a response to that problem, and initiate implementation of any needed changes.curriculum adaptation and training (cat) grants: enable courts and regional or national court associations to modify and adapt model curricula or course modules to meet state or local jurisdiction educational needs, train instructors to present portions or all of the curricula, and pilot-test them to determine their appropriateness, quality, and effectiveness.scholarships: enhance the skills, knowledge, and abilities of judges and court managers by supporting attendance at programs sponsored by national and state providers that they could not otherwise attend because of limited state, local, and personal budgets.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 97% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 46
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 59th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 40th 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3.3%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.48; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.94; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.6%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $172K · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Money network: 54 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 54 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.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.