Summer Work Experience In Law Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 262902937
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
- Location
- Cincinnati, OH, USA
- Phone
- 5132077568
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Educational Services and Schools - Other
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $223,422
- Expenses
- $110,859
- Assets
- $200,789
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Reggie Staples Jr Esq (President)
- Ann Brinkley (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Ann Brinkley (Executive Director): $22,975 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To primarily help African American students make an informed decision when it comes to entering law school and the legal profession.
What it reported doing in 2024
37 scholars participated in our 9-week summer program in 2024, primarily college students, along with several exceptional high school scholars. Monday through Thursday the students reported to individual work sites at law firms, corporate legal departments, state and federal judge's chambers, and other non-profit and governmental agencies. 18 of those students' work experiences were funded by SWEL and the remainder were paid directly by the employers. We expect a comparable number this summer. On Fridays, scholars attended a training day planned by SWEL to cover topics such as panel discussions by practicing attorneys describing their practices, how to apply to and finance law school, studying for the LSAT, oral presentations, networking, social etiquette, etc.Scholars also attended a 3-day tour of local and regional law schools including UC, Chase, OSU, and IU, meeting with admissions staff and touring each campus. The summer experience provides a full exposure to enable scholars to make an educated decision about whether a career in the law is suitable and attainable for them.Employers who hosted scholars are positively impacted by the exposure to local students who are bright, passionate and serious about their futures and this often leads to long-term relationships that can result in employment opportunities.Local law schools are introduced to a diverse group of smart, hardworking students and can showcase their programs to help attract and create a future, diverse class of students. This in turn can lead to a strong, diverse group of lawyers creating a career and life in Cincinnati that will benefit our community.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 47% for direct work, and 53% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 61
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 63
- Sustainability: 72
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 49.6%; rating input score 50
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 50.4%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.81; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 20.7%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 49.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $111K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $23K · 16 people listed
- Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.