National Institute for Jewish Hospice

Overview

Mission

The Institute For Jewish Hospice (NIJH) was established in 1985 by Rabbi Dr. Maurice Lamm to help alleviate suffering in serious and terminal illness. The Federation then gave him $25,000 seed money to do research and a committee to see if there was a need to help terminal Jewish patients. A year later it was determined that hospice is indeed a service needed by the Jewish community. The Federation then gave my husband a one-time grant and NIJH did a mail campaign to see if we would be able to garner enough support to continue the hospice project. The marketing people told us that a 1% reply is considered successful; we had a 10% response, with people asking us, “What took you so long?” We opened the first NIJH office in Cedars Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles and we began to teach non-Jewish hospice professionals how to care for dying Jewish.

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

MIXED - 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: 55
• Transparency & Controls: 83
• Accountability: 10
• Sustainability: 32
• Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Details

• What they do: 1 operating location identified
• Where the money goes: 60.3% of revenue deployed · 60% of spending went to programs
• Governance: 0 of 1 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
• Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $122K in reported program spending
• Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 1 people listed
• Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
• Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
• Filing history: 7 filing years from 2011 to 2024
• 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
• High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
• High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
• High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
• High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
• Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
• Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
• High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
• High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
• High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.