Manhattan Sephardic Congregation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133507561
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2020
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
212-988-6085
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$808,211
Expenses
$780,218
Assets
$3,213,388
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Raphael Benchimol (Rabbi): $107,589 total reported compensation
  • Arash Nefas (Director): $55,208 total reported compensation
  • Marc Hazan (Cantor): $50,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Religious organization with higher learning and youth club. Marc Hazan serves as the Chazan of Manhattan Sephardic Congregation, leading our kehillah in tefilot with the beautiful nusach of the Moroccan-Sephardic tradition. His heartfelt renditions of piyyutim enhance our spiritual experience from weekly Shabbat to the Yamim Noraim. Marc also teaches shiurim at MSC, sharing his knowledge of Torah and our mesorah with talmidim of all levels. His dedication to preserving and transmitting our Moroccan-Sephardic minhagim makes him an invaluable member of our congregational family. Our Board 01.

What it reported doing in 2020

Community center

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 10
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.5%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 3.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.12; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 36.4%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 96.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $780K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $108K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2018 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.