Jewish Tapestry Project
Legal name: Jewish Tapestry Project Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 371982017
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Raleigh, NC, USA
- Phone
- 9195391157
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $106,306
- Expenses
- $99,721
- Assets
- $11,142
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Debra Brunner (President)
People named in this filing
- Armistead Sapp (Treasurer)
- Debra Brunner (President)
- Lottie Siann (Director)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Jewish Tapestry Projects goal is to help communities in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to self-develop, focusing initially on Belarus. It is a true revival, a Jewish renaissance and a new and fresh approach to people-led community growth, where members of the communities take the lead.
What it reported doing in 2024
More than two decades later, the silence has been broken. On July 28, a striking new memorial? Memory Embrace? was unveiled on a portion of the original cemetery in Brest, Belarus. It is the culmination of a two-decade effort to restore dignity to a sacred site that was destroyed by the Nazis and paved over by the Soviets. The monument, built from recovered headstones, now stands as a public act of remembrance and reclamation.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 34
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.2%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.11; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $106K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 5 of 7 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.