Jewish Home Family
Legal name: The Jewish Home Family Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 260493240
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Jun 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Rockleigh, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 551-444-3127
- Rating
- 52
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Supportive Housing for Older Adults
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,428,016
- Expenses
- $3,141,245
- Assets
- $715,376
- Liabilities
- $1,353,518
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
33 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CAROL SILVER ELLIOT (PRESIDENT & CEO)
- HOWARD CHERNIN (VICE PRESIDENT)
- JONATHAN FURER (VICE PRESIDENT)
- JAYNE PETAK (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- CAROL SILVER ELLIOT (PRESIDENT & CEO): $725,305 total reported compensation
- BRANDY M STEFANCO (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $354,450 total reported compensation
- LAUREN LEVANT (SVP OF HUMAN RESOURCES): $255,665 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to provide exceptional care both at home and in our facilities, now and into the future, regardless of race, religion, or financial ability.
What it reported doing in 2024
The jewish home family oversees the activities, performance and financial health of its constituent organizations and attempts to identify, define and address those areas in which the needs of our elderly remain unmet. As such, the jewish home family constitutes thesignificant resource through which the jewish communities of bergen, hudson, and rockland counties care for the elderly.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 98
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: $0.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 96.7%; rating input score 97; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 8.4%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.89; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 48.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 29 of 30 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $725K · 33 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $132K reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 7 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.