Foundation of the Oscar and Ella Wilf Ca

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222884959
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Somerset, NJ, USA
Phone
7326493502
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Judaism

Reported finances

Revenue
$17,972,162
Expenses
$8,180,881
Assets
$15,727,589
Liabilities
$516,716

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAULA MASCIULLI (PRESIDENT OF FOUNDATION)
  • ADRIENNE ROSS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ADRIENNE ROGOVE (CAMPUS PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT BARRY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT BARRY (PRESIDENT): $382,459 total reported compensation
  • JEAN LEONE (VP OF CLINICAL OPERATIONS): $361,974 total reported compensation
  • KRISTI SAVELL (COMPTROLLER (FORMER)): $53,807 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To raise, manage and disburse funds for the activities and sustainability of the wilf campus agencies, and to promote the quality of life for the jewish elderly in central New Jersey through direct programs and collaborative efforts.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation of the oscar and ella wilf campus for senior living in somerset, New Jersey is dedicated to fulfilling the wilf campus promise: to care for and support elders in a way that respects jewish traditions and values. Through fundraising efforts and the support of contributors, the foundation provides valuable senior living programs and senior services that benefit the wilf campus and seniors throughout central New Jersey. The foundation offers tribute cards to celebrate and commemorate important life events and to honor friends and family.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 82% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 96.6%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $454.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 54.5%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.92; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 33.4% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44% of revenue deployed · 96.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $382K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 14 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.