Shabbat Angels Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
871787180
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2021
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
3105088185
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Charity, Voluntarism Promotion
Affiliation
Judaism

Reported finances

Revenue
$484,838
Expenses
$465,029
Assets
$218,206
Liabilities
$46,785

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Shana Chriki (Co-Founder)
  • Nicole Feder (Co-Founder)
  • Joe Teplow (Board Member)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Shabbat Angels was founded in February of 2021 with the initial goal of alleviating the financial burden felt by so many Jewish families around the time of Shabbat and Chagim. While that has continued to be our core purpose, the organization has also become a hub for young Jewish professionals to volunteer, donate, and connect. This community was looking for an organization that resonated with them to give their Maaser (the jewish idea that one should give 10% of their salary back to those less fortunate). Shabbat Angels was able to fill that need and in doing so has become the primary source of giving and volunteering for many young Jewish adults to give back and get involved in their community.

What it reported doing in 2024

We host events for young adults with developmental disabilities. We bring volunteers together to dance, since and enjoy so we can provide smiles and warmth to these adults living in homes. These events cost $500 per event for the cost of the challah dough, food, and activities and we host 90 of these events a year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 96% of its reported program spending out as 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.4%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 76.5%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd 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: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 79.2%; rating input score 79; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.1%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 43.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 31.3% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.4% of revenue deployed · 76.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $356K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 29 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.