York County Bar Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232647164
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
York, PA, USA
Phone
7178548755
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Legal Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$600,253
Expenses
$697,923
Assets
$9,041,358
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL J CROCENZI (PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTY H FAWCETT (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • SUSAN R EMMONS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • VICTORIA CONNOR (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • VICTORIA CONNOR (CEO): $217,650 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the york county bar foundation, the charitable arm of the york county bar association, is to increase access to justice for all people, particularly those struggling with poverty and abuse, improve the administration of justice, promote public understanding of and respect for the law, support career development in the legal profession that reflects the makeup of our community, improve the quality of life for york countains through support for law-related community initiatives.

What it reported doing in 2025

Pro bono: legal aid and ongoing interests ($244,056.38): midpenn legal services received the lion's share of the available assistance, with grants and alternative pro bono service funding in the amount of $93,975; to support pro bono services and to preserve their critically needed family-law attorney position in the york office.pirc also received $50,000 to support a rapid response team hotline established for the immigrant community and to retain staff and support its operations in providing free legal services to indigent, vulnerable immigrants in the york community. Pirc's work includes direct representation in york county of immigrant victims of domestic violence and sexual assault and for partial support for its office manager position to coordinate activities that meet the growing education and direct services needs of immigrants/immigrant families, and leverage pirc's legal staff, programs, community partnerships, and experience to grow and reach additional immigrants who would otherwise go unserved.the children aid society received an additional $10,000 to support the delivery of the york court alliance program in partnership with participating high schools. $90,081.38 supported ycbf's efforts related to the delivery of pro bono and legal services to the york county community. With this funding, the ycbf provided expungement/pardon clinicsb along with free cle trainings, pfa "service days, and participation in other free to the public community information events such as wills for heroes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.1%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 52.8%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th 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: 98.5%; rating input score 98; 50th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -16.3%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.95; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.1% of revenue deployed · 52.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $369K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $218K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.