Saul Alexander Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237420175
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
N Charleston, SC, USA
Phone
8437235736
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Judaism

Reported finances

Revenue
$164,088
Expenses
$199,642
Assets
$3,468,134
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KERRI FORREST (ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JANE LITZ (CFO THRU 10/30/25): $258,067 total reported compensation
  • KERRI FORREST (ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $199,055 total reported compensation
  • CHRIS BALLAD (CFO BEGIN 11/1/25): $163,692 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The saul alexander foundation was established to support jewish causes and other charitable and educational scholarship programs in summerville and charleston county, South Carolina.

What it reported doing in 2025

Grantmaking: our grantmaking supports jewish and other charitable causes in the charleston, dorchester and berkeley county areas.in 2025, the saul alexander foundation disbursed 5 grants and scholarships totaling $159,264. These grants were distributed as follows: 1 grant totaling $155,264 to the saul alexander fund at coastal community foundation in support of philanthropic efforts as defined by mr. Alexander's will, 2 grants totaling $2,000 supporting human needs,1 grant for $1,000 in support of arts and 1 grant for $1,000 in support of the environment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 79.8%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th 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: 97.5%; rating input score 97; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -21.7%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.37; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 79.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $159K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $258K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.