Kosloff Torah Academy High School for Girls
Legal name: Is Kosloff Torah Academy High School for Girls
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 452611143
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Bala Cynwyd, PA, USA
- Phone
- 6106605010
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,338,916
- Expenses
- $5,607,562
- Assets
- $8,885,966
- Liabilities
- $209,333
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DR DAVID WEISS (PRESIDENT)
- RABBI YAAKOV DEUTSCHER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- RACHEL BAUM (PRINCIPAL): $148,800 total reported compensation
- RABBI YAAKOV DEUTSCHER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $141,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
KTA is an Orthodox Jewish Girls High School whose mission is to instill in our students a love of Torah, identification with the Jewish People and our mesorah, attachment to Israel and commitment to high standards of Torah observance and personal conduct. A driving force behind Irving’s success was his life-partner of 58 years, Libby, a”h. Her unwavering support and the exemplary relationship they enjoyed were key factors in Irving’s accomplishments. Yet despite his professional and personal achievements, Kos’s defining characteristics were his unpretentious modesty and his generous heart. To Kos, the term generosity meant far more than just magnanimous philanthropy. Generosity was part of his essence. As a young child, it meant dedicating his time and talents to underprivileged youths and aspiring athletes. In later years, it meant always putting the needs of his employees, his...
What it reported doing in 2024
Operation of an educational institution which promotes instruction in both sacred and secular studies for high school aged girls.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 75
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 62
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 73.7%; rating input score 74
- Program expense ratio: 81.8%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: $17.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th 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: 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 11.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.58; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 73.7% of revenue deployed · 81.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $149K · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.