JFS – Jewish Family Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
430790330
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St. Louis, MO, USA
Phone
314-993-1000
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Children's, Youth Services
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,528,348
Expenses
$5,994,239
Assets
$20,979,713
Liabilities
$387,902

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MOLLY SALKY (PRESIDENT)
  • MEGAN T WILSON (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • ALONZO BYRD (VICE PRESIDENT STRATEGIC PLANNING)
  • RICHARD LEVY (VICE PRESIDENT HUMAN RESOURCES)
  • MICHAEL LOURIE (VICE PRESIDENT FIN. DEV/MARKETING)
  • SHERRY SHUMAN (VICE PRESIDENT LEADERSHIP)

Highest reported compensation

  • MIRIAM SEIDENFELD (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $255,155 total reported compensation
  • STEPHANIE GRANT (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $143,320 total reported compensation
  • KELLY BAUMGARDEN (PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINER): $138,372 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

JFS understands people and families holistically and provides comprehensive services through multiple points of entry to effectively address the complex needs of individuals and families. Services are provided at no or reduced cost to make high-quality care and community connection available and accessible to all. Our mission Inspired by the Jewish tradition to make the world a better place, JFS helps and supports people in need to meet their challenges.

What it reported doing in 2024

Older adult services: for decades, jfs case managers have provided direct services and referrals to resources that help adults ages 60 and older to live safely at home, stay connected to community, and enrich quality of living as they navigate new stages of life.elderlink st. Louis is a coordinated intake and referral phone service for older adults, their children, and their caregivers that offers specialized resources and information. The elderlink phone line is staffed by master's-level social workers, who offer customized information and referrals on the issues affecting callers or their loved ones. All callers are offered a comprehensive assessment.(see schedule o)older adult services continued from page 2: upon request, jfs case managers collaborate with clients and caregivers to develop and manage an individualized care plan that facilitates and supports continued independence and safety in their desired living environment. We provide resources and program referrals, subsidized in-home support services, falls and hospital re-admission prevention, and counseling and chaplaincy visits as needed or requested.jfs supports independent living through a network of referral partners that offer transportation to medical appointments, food delivery, utility assistance, minor home repairs, home health care, housing information, support to apply for government and veterans benefits and medicaid, socialization opportunities, and more.st. Louis norc is a non-sectarian neighborhood program that supports the healthy aging of people age 60 and older in their own homes by providing opportunities for meaningful community involvement and increased access to support services. For over 15 years, norc has supported and offered peace of mind to thousands of people aging in their own homes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.3%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 75.7%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.4%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.5; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.2%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 65.3% of revenue deployed · 75.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $255K · 28 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $867K reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 40 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.