The American Association for Justice Robert L Habush Endowment

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521964499
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2029653500
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,870,998
Expenses
$1,111,012
Assets
$26,388,556
Liabilities
$288,616

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANTHONY TARRICONE (PRESIDENT)
  • JULIE BRAMAN KANE (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANJALI JESSERAMSING (GENERAL COUNSEL): $370,132 total reported compensation
  • ANNE B ENOS (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $354,545 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS FISCHETTI (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $305,904 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See schedule othe endowment serves as a grant-making mission to:1) provide consistent public education and research to promote informed public dialogue on, understanding of and appreciation for the civil justice system;2) sponsor prestigious education programs and well-received publications for judges and law professors; and 3) fund innovative scholarship and far reaching research on the civil justice system and individual rights.

What it reported doing in 2024

To help fund empirical research projects on substantial areas of the law including issues relating to ending forced arbitration, the preemption of state law, immunity, jury bias, and tort tax issues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 78.1%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: 97.7%; rating input score 98; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 40.6%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 23.75; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.5%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 78.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $868K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $370K · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $193K reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 13 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.