Kulanu

Legal name: Kulanu Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521919094
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, United States
Phone
+1 (929) 344-1645
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Migration, Refugee Issues
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$509,513
Expenses
$424,035
Assets
$778,780
Liabilities
$225,763

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BONITA NATHAN SUSSMAN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MOLLY LEVINE (EXECUTIVE DI): $88,645 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

At Kulanu, our goal is simple: to empower every Jewish community with the resources and support they need to thrive and connect with the global Jewish family. Mission Statement. Support our mission by donating today. Your contribution helps sustain and empower these communities. DONATE [](. Kulanu supports isolated, emerging, and returning Jewish communities. Founded in 1994 by Jack and Diane Zeller, Kulanu has evolved from a small living room gathering of volunteers into a thriving global network of Jewish communities. Over 30 years, we’ve professionalized, broadened our focus, and embraced technology, to foster partnerships worldwide. Now active in communities from 30+ nations, from the Lemba Jews in Zimbabwe to communities in India, Ghana, and Peru, we provide resources, forge connections, and celebrate diverse Jewish identities. Fueled by the belief that no Jewish community...

What it reported doing in 2024

Kulanu grant programs - kulanu gives a series of grants to help communities in sub-saharan africa, latin america, and asia to develop jewish infrastructure (synagogues, jewish schools, cemeteries, mikvahs), observe holidays, and assist in other community needs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.4%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 75.5%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 35th 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: 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.8%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.84; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.9%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 64.4% of revenue deployed · 75.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $320K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $89K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.