The Lenny Zakim Fund
Legal name: The Lenny Zakim Fund C/o Dla Piper Llp
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 043485146
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Boston, MA, USA
- Phone
- (617) 406-5945
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Judaism
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $976,124
- Expenses
- $1,402,213
- Assets
- $9,194,278
- Liabilities
- $33,790
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ALLISON E PICOTT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- ALLISON E PICOTT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $164,798 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Lenny Zakim Fund (LZF) seeks and supports people and organizations with tangible solutions that promise positive change in their very own communities, building bridges between grassroots organizations, the people they serve, donors, volunteers, and community leaders. The Lenny Zakim Fund works to develop deep relationships and builds bridges among people and communities to advance social, economic, and racial justice. Our mission is to listen to those most impacted by inequity and provide the funding, essential resources, and support they need to create lasting change. We envision a more just and equitable world where communities thrive because of the contributions and leadership of grassroots organizations. Values Statements The work of the Lenny Zakim Fund is guided by the following principles:.
What it reported doing in 2024
The fund makes small and meaningful grants to support some of the most amazing and effective grassroots programs in the state. The fund continually nurtures these organizations toward growth and sustainability by providing the resources, training and other supports that are often unavailable to small organizations, including grantmaking, training and networking, counseling and advice, publicity and pro-bono legal assistance.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 62% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 74.1%; rating input score 74
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 26th 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: 95.9%; rating input score 96; 43rd 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: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -43.7%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.56; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 11.8%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 74.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $165K · 20 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 56 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 55 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.