Goodman Jewish Family Services

Legal name: Dr Stanley and Pearl Goodman Jfs of Broward County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
590995106
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Davie, FL, US
Phone
954-370-2140
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$34,534,311
Expenses
$35,127,002
Assets
$12,415,291
Liabilities
$8,215,795

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

Leadership & pay

43 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RANDY COLMAN (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • RANDY COLMAN (PRESIDENT & CEO): $425,948 total reported compensation
  • BARBARA WELTE-DI PIETRO (CFO): $220,037 total reported compensation
  • JONATHAN FELIZ (HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER): $213,642 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Goodman Jewish Family Services of Broward County provides programs and services to those in need in Broward County.

What it reported doing in 2024

Goodman jewish family services supports those who face daily challenges, including the normal transitions of life, new and unexpected hardships, and immediate crises. Goodman jfs programs provide comprehensive psychological services, counseling, food, financial assistance, resources, and referrals. Individuals and families, seniors, holocaust survivors, families, survivors of domestic abuse, people with developmental disabilities, and those in need of mental health support are among the clients we serve. For those who want to give back, volunteer opportunities enable individuals, groups and organizations to have a direct impact in their community while helping to expand our services and reach.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 79% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.1%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 93.5%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $40.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: -1.7%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.66; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 11 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 95.1% of revenue deployed · 93.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 30 of 30 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $32.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $426K · 43 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.1M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.