Towards Justice
Legal name: Towards Justice of Colorado
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 464625504
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Denver, CO, US
- Phone
- (720) 441-2236
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Civil Rights
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,087,547
- Expenses
- $2,035,036
- Assets
- $1,929,489
- Liabilities
- $821,226
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- DAVID SELIGMAN ESQ (EXECUTIVE DI): $229,427 total reported compensation
- JUNO TURNER ESQ (LITIGATION D): $220,307 total reported compensation
- NINA DISALVO (POLICY DIREC): $184,950 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Towards Justice fights for economic justice for low-wage and working people.
What it reported doing in 2024
Towards justice is a non-profit law firm that attacks economic inequality with a focus on workplace economic injustice. We use impact litigation to advance human and civil rights supplemented with targeted and strategic policy advocacy and collaboration with workers and communities to attack systemic injustices that undermine the power of workers-in particular, immigrant workers and workers of color-to obtain fair wages and decent working conditions. Towards justice is not a leader of the movement to build worker power, but we are proud to be a lawyer for that movement. From our on-the-ground legal intake program that connects with individuals and helps them assess legal- strategies, to our support drafting and fighting for legislation developed with community groups, to our class actions empowering individuals to represents groups of workers that are too fearful to come forward, we provide the legal tools to help community build power and grow their voice.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 93
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 15
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 88.6%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: $31.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -87.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.43; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 53.5%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 18.3% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $229K · 12 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.