American Society for Yad Vashem Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133106768
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2122204304
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,036,526
Expenses
$5,507,429
Assets
$104,173,055
Liabilities
$3,399,662

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STANLEY STONE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR END 03/24)

Highest reported compensation

  • STANLEY STONE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR END 03/24): $687,060 total reported compensation
  • AMY COOPER (NATIONAL CAMPAINGN DIR. END 01/24): $312,020 total reported compensation
  • RONA GOTTLIB BOCHENEK (COO/CFO): $230,489 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Asyv was formed exclusively for charitable, educational, religious, and literary purposes within the meaning of section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended. In furtherance of such purposes, asyv works to support public education about the events of the holocaust and other activities serving as a memorial to the victims of the holocaust, including by distributing funds to support programs and projects of yad vashem, the world holocaust remembrance center.

What it reported doing in 2024

Yad vashem - world holocaust remembrance center: the organization provides grant funding to yad vashem, the world holocaust remembrance center, entrusted with the task of commemorating, documenting, researching and educating about the holocaust: remembering the six million jews murdered by the german nazis and their collaborators, the destroyed jewish communities, and the ghetto and resistance fighters.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 32
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.4%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 30.4%; rating input score 30
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.8%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 18.92; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 37.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40.4% of revenue deployed · 30.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $687K · 19 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $330K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • 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 40/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.