Jewish Family Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN: 440545829
IRS 990 coverage: 2011–2025
Official website data refreshed: Jun 2026
Forms available: Form 990 2025
Location: Overland Park, KS, USA
Phone: 9133278250
Rating: 75
Verdict: SUPPORTED
Rating confidence: Moderate
Sector: Children's, Youth Services
Affiliation: Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue: $7,793,917
Expenses: $5,446,272
Assets: $11,403,808
Liabilities: $1,826,862

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

JANE SOSLAND (PRESIDENT)
ERIKA SALESKI (VICE PRESIDENT)
JANICE BENJAMIN (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT)
JEFF STOLPER (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
ANGELA DEWILDE (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
AWAIS SUFI (INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

AWAIS SUFI (INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $121,671 total reported compensation
ANGELA DEWILDE (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $106,528 total reported compensation
JODIE COTTRELL (CONTROLLER): $76,553 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To support the jewish and general communities by providing programs and services that address the needs of individuals and families dealing with the challenges of life.

What it reported doing in 2025

Shelter, employment and social work: this program provides information and referrals, connection with community resources, collaborative problem solving, and direct financial assistance to families dealing with financial emergencies that threaten their ability to meet their basic needs. A range of funds allows strategic financial assistance directed to help families get back on their feet. The program also serves as an access point to services such as the food pantry, low interest loans, legal support, budgeting, financial planning, andothers.

Operating model

Revenue model: Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model: Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% 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. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

Financial Efficiency: 50
Transparency & Controls: 94
Accountability: 91
Sustainability: 67
Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

Mission deployment rate: 45.2%; rating input score 45
Program expense ratio: 64.7%; rating input score 65
Fundraising efficiency: $8.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th 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; 75th 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

Operating margin: 30.1%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.09; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

Where the money goes: 45.2% of revenue deployed · 64.7% of spending went to programs
Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.5M in reported program spending
Leadership: top reported pay $122K · 23 people listed
Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $231K reported
Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
Contacts: How to reach this organization
Money network: 3 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.
Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.
Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.