JLA Trust
Legal name: Jewish Los Angeles Special Needs Financial Services Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 810820016
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Phone
- 4243413344
- Rating
- 52
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $688,505
- Expenses
- $555,933
- Assets
- $341,852
- Liabilities
- $5,174
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SANDOR SAMUELS (President)
Highest reported compensation
- MICHELLE WOLF (Executive Dir.): $94,626 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
We help people with disabilities supplement their government benefits with affordable, professional special needs trust services. Founded in 2015 with support from the Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles, the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, and Bet Tzedek Legal Services, JLA Trust enrolled our first client in August 2016. Community support and community need has allowed us to grow fast, doubling our client base every year. Our work is based on two Jewish principles: “B’tselem Elohim – each person is created in God’s image,” and “Tikkun Olam— repairing the world”. Our roots in the Jewish community are strong, but we serve clients of all faiths, ethnicities, disability types, and sexual/gender identities. We understands that the trustworthiness and transparency of those caring for your loved one are of t.
What it reported doing in 2025
In 2025 the ninth full calendar year of operations the jewish los angeles special needs trust enrolled 39 new beneficiaries in ourfirst-party and third-party pooled trusts plus an additional 7beneficiaries in our future funded third-party trusts andaccepted our first 7 standalone trusts. Each of our activebeneficiaries receives monthly check-ins and up to two hours permonth of individualized services included in the annual fee, withadditional case management services available for a fee. Jla trustcontinues to provide in-person and online individual consultationsas well as free public information sessions in spanish and englishon topics specific to the disabled community including legal andfinancial long-term planning, housing, and governmentresources. Over the nine years of operation jla trust hasenrolled a total of 345 clients and has a current aum of $16,800,000.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 63% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 41
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 10
- Sustainability: 51
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 41.8%; rating input score 42
- Program expense ratio: 51.7%; rating input score 52
- Fundraising efficiency: $2.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 19.3%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 17%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 41.8% of revenue deployed · 51.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $288K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $95K · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.