Jewish Home and Senior Living Foundation

Legal name: The Jewish Home and Senior Living Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020724278
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
415.406.1107
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,017,891
Expenses
$5,373,039
Assets
$42,939,834
Liabilities
$15,638,861

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • STACEY LEWIS (CHIEF PHILANTHROPIC OFFICER): $280,678 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Mission is to ensure that our healthcare, residential, and community-based programs have adequate financial resources to remain at the forefront of caring for seniors, as we have for the last 150 years. > “Your financial support is critical to enriching the lives of older adults and in maintaining the excellence for which the Jewish Home is known.”.

What it reported doing in 2024

The primary exempt purpose of the foundation is to promote the provision of jewish home and aging services by raising funds and providing financial support for the functions, activities, programs, practices, facilities and other purposes that relate to, or are associated with, the hebrew home for aged disabled--dba san francisco campus for jewish living (sfcjl), a California non-profit public benefit corporation, including, but not limited to, the sfcjl's elderly service programs and elderly activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.3%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 70.5%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.8 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 23.4%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.99; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 65.3% of revenue deployed · 70.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $281K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $320K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.