Igrb Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364018186
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3123574790
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Private Independent Foundations
Affiliation
Judaism

Reported finances

Revenue
$233,544
Expenses
$960,041
Assets
$32,280,814
Liabilities
$431,515

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID S ROSEN (VICE PRESIDENT & SECRETARY)
  • JEFFREY R BROWN (President)
  • LONNIE NASATIR (VICE PRESIDENT & TREASURER)

Highest reported compensation

  • LONNIE NASATIR (VICE PRESIDENT & TREASURER): $668,514 total reported compensation
  • DAVID S ROSEN (VICE PRESIDENT & SECRETARY): $558,732 total reported compensation
  • JAMES A PINKSTON (ASSISTANT TREASURER): $365,057 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The foundation is exclusively organized to foster, promote, support, develop, encourage and maintain a specific charitable, educational or religious purpose or function of, or as authorized in the charter of, the jewish federation of metropolitan chicago.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation makes grants to charitable organizations, all of which meet the guidelines of the by-laws of the foundation and the charter of the jewish federation of metropolitan chicago. All of these organizations are exempt under irc section 501(c)(3).

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 52
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.4%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd 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: 95%; rating input score 95; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 15th 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: -311.1%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 33.62; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26.3% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $906K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $669K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 56 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.