Knoxville Jewish Alliance

Legal name: Knoxville Jewish Alliance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
620452960
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Knoxville, TN, US
Phone
(865) 690-6343
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,411,663
Expenses
$2,522,404
Assets
$4,074,782
Liabilities
$255,317

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRYAN GOLDBERG (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • JUDITH ROSENBERG (PRESIDENT)
  • SCOTT HAHN (PRESIDENT - ELECT)

People named in this filing

  • BERNARD BENDRIEM (TRUSTEE)
  • BRYAN GOLDBERG (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • JUDITH ROSENBERG (PRESIDENT)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to build community, promote Jewish culture and identity, provide assistance for those in need, and enhance community relations in East Tennessee and around the world.

What it reported doing in 2025

Adult, education & cultural arts, children & youth, early childhood development, friendshippers, milton collins day camp, publications & public relations, jewish federations of north america, jewish family services, kja services, local recipients: hillel at ut and other regional, national and international beneficiaries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 73% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 86.1%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $39.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.5%; rating input score 95; 36th 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: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.62; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 90% of revenue deployed · 86.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 22 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.