Chicago Jewish Day School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364437180
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
7739488602
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$15,593,966
Expenses
$11,257,488
Assets
$29,346,842
Liabilities
$2,382,439

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAY GOODGOLD (PRESIDENT)
  • JONATHAN COPE (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • IRIS GAFNI-KANE (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • ANAT GEVA (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • WENDY PLATT NEWBERGER (PAST PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JUDY FINKELSTEIN-TAFF (HEAD OF SCHOOL): $262,312 total reported compensation
  • LIZ ERLICH (DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS): $163,871 total reported compensation
  • JILL LEVEE (ASSISTANT HEAD OF SCHOOL): $147,887 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Cjds creates for its students a standard of excellence in both jewish and general studies. Students develop a passion for learning and a strong sense of themselves as jews and as human beings. Students are inspired to develop a strong jewish identity through an integrated curriculum with a nurturing, stimulating, and creative environment. Students become a community of jewish learners, respect and appreciate diversity, love torah, israel, hebrew language, and prayer. They also learn how to be caring and knowledgeable members of the community, the country, and the world.

What it reported doing in 2024

Chicago jewish day school offers an integrated program of academic excellence designed to nurture the whole child, and to foster a lifelong love of learning. The school teaches junior kindergarten through 8th grade.

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 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.9%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 82.6%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $35.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 65.9%; rating input score 66; 13th 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; 66th 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 27.8%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.61; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.3%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.9% of revenue deployed · 82.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $262K · 27 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $167K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.