Jewish Community Federation of Richmond
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 540524512
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Richmond, VA, USA
- Phone
- 8045458685
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Federated Giving Programs
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,056,145
- Expenses
- $4,099,323
- Assets
- $5,111,412
- Liabilities
- $2,672,624
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DANIEL STAFFENBERG (CEO)
- JOSH GOLDBERG (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DANIEL STAFFENBERG (CEO): $281,115 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
A. To organize and maintain an organization or organizations to coordinate the soliciting of funds for charitable purposes and allocate the same to such local, non-local or foreign organizations as it may determine. B. To interest itself in all matters pertaining to the jewish community in the city of richmond and its vicinity and in and outside of the commonwealth of Virginia, and to be helpful in such ways as are in the best interest of all persons of the jewish and richmond community. Values of outreach and engagement the jewish community federation of richmond believes all individuals in the community are important and values their perspective in building, sustaining and perpetuating a caring community. The jcfr will create options for all jews, regardless of age, economic status or affiliation, to participate in communal life. The federation will collaborate with jewish agencies, organizations and synagogues to promote outreach in an effort to foster jewish continuity and an aware
What it reported doing in 2024
The federation supports rescue, emergency and community renewal activities throughout the world, including in zaparozhye, ukraine, through jewish community centers, chesed welfare centers and the american jewish joint distribution committee which is our partner in this effort. Federation funding also supports welfare relief reaching elderly jews in more than 2,000 locations throughout the region, providing food, medicine and medical care, home care, winter heating, and other social services through a network of more than 60 social welfare centers operated by the american jewish joint distribution committee (jdc). In the reporting period, 64,992 seniors received food assistance; 21,833 seniors received home care; 20,719 received medicine or medical assistance; 7,345 received winter relief; and 1400 jewish youth were brought into the jewish tent at camp szarvas. Jdc also furnished critical nutritional and medical assistance to more than 30,000 jewish children and their families. The jewish agency for israel (jafi) operated summer camps and sunday schools in the region and provided leadership activities for young adults. Ukraine: in response to the war in ukraine, federation-supported efforts provided humanitarian assistance and trauma relief, aided 35,000 jews in ukraine and 39,000 jewish refugees, and assisted with evacuations, shelter for displaced individuals and refugees, and delivery of critical aid (including food and medical supplies). Latin america and europe: jdc works with local jewish communal leadership to identify individuals and families at highest risk and to help ensure vulnerable children, adults, and seniors receive essential support. In argentina, jdc's essential subsidies prevented 585 families - a total of 1,367 people - from slipping even further into poverty. As inflation peaked to a staggering 200% by the year's end, many jews struggled to afford necessities and find stable employment. In buenos aires and the provinces, jdc helped put food on the table, monthly rent in hand, and vital medicines within reach. Half of these beneficiaries were newly poor families, still struggling to regain their economic footing since the pandemic.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 56
- Transparency & Controls: 67
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 34
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 62.2%; rating input score 62
- Program expense ratio: 60.5%; rating input score 60
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 51.5%; rating input score 51; 16th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -1.1%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.25; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 62.2% of revenue deployed · 60.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 28 of 28 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $281K · 29 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $176K reported
- Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 13 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 51/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.