The Edward Raphael Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680493061
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3237618700
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support
Affiliation
Judaism

Reported finances

Revenue
$24,555
Expenses
$162,410
Assets
$1,528,402
Liabilities
$16,900

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEN DUSICK (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • JERRY GOREN (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • OSIAS G GOREN (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • LILLIAN RAPHAEL (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRUCE GOREN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DOROTHY GOREN (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARVIN SCHOTLAND (SECRETARY/DIRECTOR): $534,094 total reported compensation
  • DAVID CARROLL (VICE PRESIDENT): $220,523 total reported compensation
  • SUSAN MATTISINKO (ASSISTANT SECRETARY): $190,153 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization's charitable giving is directed to the jewish commmunity and the community at large for the benefit of organizations that provide education and religious benefits and services.

What it reported doing in 2016

Charitable giving

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 3rd 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -561.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.41; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 112.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.6% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: -7.8% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $157K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $534K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2014 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 45 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.