Jewish Community Center and Federation of Augusta Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
586044144
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Augusta, GA, USA
Phone
7062283636
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs
Affiliation
Judaism

Reported finances

Revenue
$468,925
Expenses
$375,061
Assets
$3,206,384
Liabilities
$20,664

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNIFER WOOD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DR JUDITH GIRI (VICE PRESIDENT - ALLOCATIO)
  • DR SARANNE PERMAN (PRESIDENT)
  • DANI CAPOZZI (VICE PRESIDENT - PROGRAMS)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER WOOD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $101,538 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The jewish community center and federation of augusta, inc. Is dedicated to the support of jewish life in augusta, the united states, isreal and around the world. Our mission centers on raising funds locally to support local, national and international jewish life. The federation is also charged with promoting social, cultural and humanitarian activities that promote jewish thinking and ideas. In this capacity, we act as an umbrella organization to all jewish groups in the augusta area.

What it reported doing in 2025

Contributions to various jewish charitable causes at international, national and local levels by raising funds locally.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 69% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 84% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.4%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 63.3%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 46.6%; rating input score 47; 44th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.55; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.1%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.4% of revenue deployed · 63.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $237K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $102K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 47/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.