West Virginia Fund for Law in the Public Interest

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
550680592
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Morgantown, WV, USA
Phone
3042938555
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$644,190
Expenses
$165,847
Assets
$1,048,295
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICK HASSEN (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CHARLES R DISALVO (DIRECTOR)
  • JAMIE DESANTIS (BOARD MEMBER)
  • MELISSA GIGGENBACH (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

A. Law students were placed as fellows with nonprofit public interest organizations in West Virginia serving the poor, the unemployed, indigent criminal defendants and others without access to legal services. Students assist public interest attorneys in a variety of contexts from public benefits work to protection of women from domestic violence to representation of indigent criminal defendants. The organizations with which the students listed above were placed are listed on schedule i, part 2 b. Law students received a bar stipend to help defray the costs relating to law school and their pursuit of becoming a public interest attorney. C. In addition, we have a loan repayment assistance program. The purpose of the program is to attract persons into legal services work for the poor. Many law graduates cannot afford to work for legal aid societies because their take home pay is insufficient to cover their monthly payments on education loans. Our program assists graduates who would otherw

What it reported doing in 2024

See attached schedule

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 92
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.1%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 74.3%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.32; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.1% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $166K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.