New England Jewish Academy

Legal name: The Bess and Paul Sigel Hebrew Academy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
060665199
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2018
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
West Hartford, CT, United States
Phone
860.231.0317
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Judaism
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,888,767
Expenses
$1,685,503
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Shyne Green Kesler (1st Vice President)
  • Ann Pava (2nd Vice President)
  • Isaac Moss (CO-President)
  • Juanita Moss (CO-President)
  • Rabbi Avi Robinson (Previous President)

People named in this filing

  • Shyne Green Kesler (1st Vice President)
  • Ann Pava (2nd Vice President)
  • Isaac Moss (CO-President)

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 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The New England Jewish Academy is a co-educational Early Childhood Center - 12th Grade Orthodox Jewish Day School serving Connecticut and Western Massachusetts. Drawing from all segments of the Jewish community, NEJA prepares its students to think critically and creatively, live an engaged Jewish life in the wider world, and strengthen their commitment to Jewish heritage and their bond with the Jewish people and Israel—while recognizing their responsibility to American society and the global community.

What it reported doing in 2018

To offer the highest level of Judaic and general education to children and families of all affiliations in the community, and to develop Jews who are proud of their heritage, involved in their community and devoted to G-d, Torah, Klal Yisrael, the Jewish people, and Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.6%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 83.6%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: 10.8%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -40.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 75.6% of revenue deployed · 83.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 29 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2015 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.