William E Morris Institute for Justice
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 860817170
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 6022523432
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Legal Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $517,862
- Expenses
- $477,738
- Assets
- $380,638
- Liabilities
- $198,235
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Veronika Fabian (President)
- Rebecca McCracken Pringle (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Andrew P Schaffer (Executive Dir.): $119,300 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The William E. Morris Institute for Justice advocates on behalf of low income Arizonans in historically marginalized communities, protecting their most basic civil and human rights.
What it reported doing in 2024
MIJ's program accomplishments include successful administrative and policy advocacy ensuring economic security, food security, and health care justice for low-income Arizonans statewide; successful civil rule change advocacy ensuring the availability of resources to support access to justice; and protection of Arizona consumers from predatory financial and lending practices. MIJ remains engaged in ongoing advocacy efforts with Arizona State Government officials to improve the administration of public benefits and entitlements programs and services. All of MIJ's program activities broadly serve low-income Arizonans, communities of color, immigrants and new Americans living in Arizona, and vulnerable Ariona youth, among other populations experiencing disproportionate harm from systemic problems affecting access to basic needs. MIJs programs address systemic problems affecting vulnerable Arizonans access to economic security, food and nutrition, health care, housing, the courts and government systems, and due process in the administration of public programs and services.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 78.9%; rating input score 79
- Program expense ratio: 85.6%; rating input score 86
- Fundraising efficiency: $133.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.7%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 25%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 78.9% of revenue deployed · 85.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $409K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $119K · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.