Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America

Legal name: Jewish War Veterans of the United States

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
530226294
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Washington, DC, United States
Phone
202-265-6280
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,505,794
Expenses
$1,808,938
Assets
$3,214,163
Liabilities
$674,143

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

65 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kenneth Greenberg (National Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kenneth Greenberg (National Executive Director): $174,237 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 Jewish War Veterans (JWV) is the premier voice for Jewish uniformed service members and veterans in the United States. JWV affirms that Jewish men and women serve honorably and heroically in the military forces of the United States of America during peacetime and war; it defends the rights and benefits of service members and veterans, combats antisemitism, and supports the State of Israel.

What it reported doing in 2024

Annual Convention: The Convention provides the Organization's members to meet annually and conduct the business operations of the organization, including reviewing the Constitution and Bylaws, Department and Post affairs, and priorities for legislative advocacy efforts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.4%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 50.9%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -20.1%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.78; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.6%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 78.4% of revenue deployed · 50.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 69 of 69 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $921K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $174K · 65 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $194K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.