The Jewish Federation of Greater Phoenix

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860096784
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2011
Official website data refreshed
Jun 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Phone
4806344900
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Federated Giving Programs
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,624,585
Expenses
$27,240,917
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the jewish federation of greater phoenix is to ensure and enrich jewish identity and to enhance the quality of jewish life locally, in israel, and around the world.

What it reported doing in 2011

* special emergency campaign launched to help victims of earthquakes in haiti and chile. $33,000 raised for haiti within the first few weeks.* sponsored "spirituality and psychology" workshop, the lion of judah luncheon, women's philanthropy and community - kollel's women's division and shuly nathan in concert.* the pj library was launched as a joint project between federation and the bureau of jewish education. This is a national literacy program (under the harold grinspoon foundation) to help parents explore core values of judaism with their children.* federation held "be heard" town hall meetings. The purpose of these meetings was to invite all members of the jewish community to hear an explanation of the federation's new role in the jewish community and encourage feedback.* the federation made over $1.8 million in grants to over 25 local and national jewish agencies to address a range of humanitarian and cultural challenges.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st 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: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -651.6%; rating input score 0; 0th 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: 0.9%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -26.6% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 26 of 26 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $26.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $115K · 29 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2010 to 2011
  • Money network: 24 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 24 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.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.