Emunah Project

Legal name: Emunah Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
811765281
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2023
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Jackson, NJ, USA
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$173,265
Expenses
$174,015
Assets
$193
Liabilities
$500,000

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DROR M CASSOUTO (DIRECTOR): $20,880 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Rav Dror and the Emunah Project share a mission to spread freedom through faith in HaShem by reconnecting people with Torah, deepening their emunah, and helping them shine divine light across the world. Whether you’re deepening your Jewish roots, beginning your journey into Judaism and conversion, or looking to strengthen your faith, Emunah Academy provides the roadmap and support to grow your Jewish roots and make your daily spiritual practice simple and meaningful. Welcome! Watch this first. Founded by Rav Dror in 2016, the Emunah Project Inc. is a non-profit organization dedicated to producing and disseminating faith-based media to the entire world. Through various media, including videos, articles, books, podcasts, and more, we share Rav Dror's priceless teachings to people from all walks of life around the globe in several languages. Our goal is to connect people with messages...

What it reported doing in 2023

Emunah project operates as a spiritual organization, community learning center, and advancing community well being by offering social assistance to the impoverished and needy.

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 68% for direct work, and 32% for 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: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45.1%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 44.9%; rating input score 45
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.4%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2,590.67; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -36.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 45.1% of revenue deployed · 44.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 1 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $78K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $21K · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2016 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 45/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.