Kavod V'Nichum

Legal name: Kavod VNichum

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010604102
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Maplewood, NJ, US
Phone
5162707431
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Religion Related N.E.C.
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$239,628
Expenses
$317,518
Assets
$71,744
Liabilities
$1,529

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Patricia Cluss (President)
  • Kara Silverman (Vice President)
  • Angel Alvarez-Mapp (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sarit Wishnevski (Executive Dir.): $69,317 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Kavod v’Nichum empowers, educates, and trains Chevra Kadisha – sacred communities that come together at the end of life to care for the deceased and comfort the living through Jewish rituals and traditions.

What it reported doing in 2025

Religion Related, Spiritual Development Conference: Chevra Kadisha conference provides education about Jewish traditions around death and dying, including care for the dead and comfort for the bereaved. Conference includes workshops, lectures, study and networking. In 2024, our annual conference brought together more than 300 Chevra Kadisha volunteers, clergy, end-of-life doulas/midwives, Jewish communal professionals, students, funeral home professionals, chaplains, and seekers to share wisdom, explore Jewish practices, and build a stronger, more connected movement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

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: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 72.4%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -32.5%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.8%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
  • Where the money goes: 96% of revenue deployed · 72.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $230K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $69K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.