Jack Joseph and Morton Mandel Supporting Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 341350566
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Cleveland, OH, USA
- Phone
- 2165932900
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $168,250,145
- Expenses
- $154,787,179
- Assets
- $3,348,099,726
- Liabilities
- $93,682,886
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- STEPHEN H HOFFMAN SEE SCH O (TRUSTEE AND PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- ERIKA B RUDIN-LURIA SEE SCH O (TRUSTEE): $858,267 total reported compensation
- MOZELLE JACKSON (TREASURER UNTIL 3/19/25): $340,473 total reported compensation
- ABIGAIL LEVIN (SECRETARY): $220,300 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Jack, joseph and morton mandel supporting foundation is a supporting foundation of the jewish federation of cleveland and as such, is organized and operated exclusively for charitable, educational or religious purposes by conducting or supporting activities for the benefit of, or to carry out the purposes of, the federation. It was established to meet identified needs of the jewish and general communities.
What it reported doing in 2024
Grants and expenses paid to organizations made to further charitable, educational & religious purposes of the jewish federation of cleveland (federation)
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Investment-supported. 98% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 51
- Sustainability: 81
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 89.7%; rating input score 90
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Pass
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Pass
- Conducts site visits: Pass
- Requires grant agreements: Pass
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 40%; rating input score 40; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 8%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 21.63; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.4%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 26.8% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 89.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $138.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $858K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $12M reported
- Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 36 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 92 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 40/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 not reported.