Covenant Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363722029
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2122453500
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,492,204
Expenses
$7,588,979
Assets
$7,383,382
Liabilities
$4,620,194

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JONI-SUE B LEVINE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • BARBARA GOODMAN MANILOW (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JONI-SUE B LEVINE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $286,863 total reported compensation
  • ABBY PITKOWSKY (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $212,388 total reported compensation
  • RALIA WAGNER (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND ADMIN): $196,484 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To build on existing strength within the field of jewish education in north america, by addressing all forms of pre-collegiate and adult jewish education through awards to individuals and grants to institutions for creative programs.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Foundation addresses all forms of pre-collegiate and adult Jewish education. Through awards to individuals and grants to institutions for creative programs, the Foundation seeks to cultivate the strengths of outstanding educators. To further strengthen the field, the Foundation disseminates information about effective programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.1%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • 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: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 82.4%; rating input score 82; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: 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: -1.3%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.97; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.63; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.7%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.1% of revenue deployed · 90% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $287K · 19 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 40 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 35 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.
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.