JVS Career & Employment

Legal name: Jewish Vocational Service & Employment Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
362167762
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2017
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Chicago, IL, US
Phone
855.275.5237
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Employment Procurement Assistance
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,019,581
Expenses
$8,474,048
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Howard Sitron (President/CEO)
  • Vincent M Everson (Vice President/CFO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Howard Sitron (President/CEO): $348,537 total reported compensation
  • Vincent M Everson (Vice President/CFO): $182,773 total reported compensation
  • Kathleen Gerhold (Sr. Dir. Career & Employment Svcs.): $121,039 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

High-quality employment services through assessment and education that empower individual success.

What it reported doing in 2017

Contract Services: As a trusted provider of SourceAmerica (AbilityOne) and State Use contracts, JVS Chicago administers contracts with federal and state agencies that provide crucial job training and employment support to adults with disabilities. JVS Chicago Contract Services is dedicated to empowering adults with disabilities with the skills necessary to lead productive and meaningful lives. Mailroom, janitorial, property management and warehousing programs provide case management, vocational training and job placement services to more than 100 adults with disabilities throughout metropolitan Chicago, deepening their skills and strengthening their employability.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 64% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.9%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 88.3%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 6%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.7%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 10 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 88.9% of revenue deployed · 88.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $7.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $349K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2009 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.