Yeshiva High Tech

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453810158
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2016
Official website data refreshed
Jun 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3105560663
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Secondary, High School
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$27,644
Expenses
$22,102
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAM BABAOFF (PRESIDENT)
  • MARC BOHBOT (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KAM BABAOFF (PRESIDENT)
  • MARC BOHBOT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • EFREM HARKHAM (SECRETARY/TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Intended to serve the greater los angeles community and to provide each student with a diverse self-directed, independent education in a safe, supportive and nurturing environment that promotes self-discipline, integrity, motivation, and excellence in learning.

What it reported doing in 2016

Jewish high school that is accessible to everyone through affordable tuition, not scholarships. Seeks to create a blended learning environment that is based on the torah values and a commitment to the halacha. Focuses on a relatively small student population and provides the tools necessary to actively participate in contemporary society while adhering to a life imbued with torah values and halacha. Program service revenue is derived from the payment of tuition.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 42
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38.7%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 59.8%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -44.5% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -37% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38.7% of revenue deployed · 59.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $13K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2012 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.