The Jewish Home Tower Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 581287829
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Jun 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA
- Phone
- 4043513536
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $7,200,596
- Expenses
- $5,046,907
- Assets
- $33,806,390
- Liabilities
- $23,708,230
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Felicia Marable (Executive Director)
- JEFFREY GOPEN (CEO and President)
Highest reported compensation
- JEFFREY GOPEN (CEO and President): $479,456 total reported compensation
- NEELAM RAHATEKAR (CFO and COO): $381,599 total reported compensation
- Felicia Marable (Executive Director): $84,585 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide comfortable and safe housing for low-income elderly persons.
What it reported doing in 2024
The Jewish Home Tower, Inc. operates a rental housing project under Section 202 of the National Housing Act. The Project consists of 200 housing units for low-income individuals who are elderly or physically disabled and in need of the design features of an accessible unit through the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 202 and 8 housing programs. The Jewish Home Tower also provides such assistance as transportation, resolution of medical insurance issues, identification of alternate doctors and health agencies, art classes, library, and exercise programs.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 60% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 59
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 75
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 57.2%; rating input score 57
- Program expense ratio: 81.6%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th 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: Limited
- 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 29.9%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.7; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.7; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 20% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 57.2% of revenue deployed · 81.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $479K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $3.7M reported
- Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.