Jewish Federation of St. Joseph Valley
Legal name: Jewish Federation of St Joseph Valley Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 350941124
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- South Bend, IN, United States
- Phone
- 574-233-1164
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,314,312
- Expenses
- $1,338,979
- Assets
- $11,968,205
- Liabilities
- $2,730,978
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CRISTYNE PORILE (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- MARK MOSHE KRUGER (EXECUTIVE DI): $137,188 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To be the central resource to embrace, connect, and support Jews locally and globally through social services, coordinated fundraising, community outreach, and educational and recreational programming. The Jewish Federation of St. Joseph Valley is a local nonprofit that has been a vital part of building our diverse Jewish community for over 75 years. We strive to create a sustainable, engaged, and connected community that supports one another locally and globally. We serve as the central resource to embrace, connect, and support Jews locally and globally through social services, coordinated fundraising, community outreach, and educational programming.
What it reported doing in 2024
In the spirit of tikkun olam (repair the world), our community relations and israel advocacy department act to repair the world through advocacy, outreach, and vocal condemnation of anti-semitism send our community educators to over 20 local schools, churches and organizations at no cost to the recipients. In the spirit of k'lal yisrael (jewish peoplehood) we bring jews of all backgrounds, affiliations, and observance levels together under one roof having community wide celebration events.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 73% for direct work, and 27% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 49
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 76.5%; rating input score 76
- Fundraising efficiency: $8.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 24.1%; rating input score 24; 26th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: -1.9%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.94; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 76.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $137K · 19 people listed
- Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 24/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.