Rekindle

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
873244116
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Beachwood, OH, USA
Phone
2163024760
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy N.E.C.
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$447,882
Expenses
$237,345
Assets
$387,233
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Matthew Fieldman (Co-Founder and Executive Director)
  • Charmaine Rice (Board President Emeritus)
  • Keshia Chambers (Board Co-President)
  • Jereme Sykes (Board Co-President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Matthew Fieldman (Co-Founder and Executive Director): $44,000 total reported compensation
  • Gil Rubanenko (Chief Program Officer): $34,500 total reported compensation
  • Donea Boiner (Program Director): $24,200 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Rekindle's mission is to drive meaningful social change by fostering collaboration between African-American and Jewish leaders. Through open, challenging dialogues and direct, face-to-face interactions, we aim to dismantle barriers and cultivate new connections. By reigniting the historic alliance forged during the Civil Rights Movement, we seek to enhance our collective impact and promote greater equity across Cleveland and the nation. We invite our Fellows to engage deeply, broaden their perspectives, and actively contribute to advancing social justice both in Cleveland and nationwide.

What it reported doing in 2025

To date, Rekindle has graduated twenty cohorts nationally totaling 390 Rekindle Fellows, who represent a diverse mix of professional roles, including philanthropy, media, business, economic development, and more. Fellows have launched a wide range of collaborative projects around: fostering entrepreneurship, women-focused programming, social get-togethers, criminal justice reform, and more. And when we survey our alumni six months after their Fellowship, they report that they continue to connect with the other community, advocate for the other community, challenge biases they seen in their own communities, and much more.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% 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 a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.4%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 89.7%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $44.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 47%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.63; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 43.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 71.7% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 103.8% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.4% of revenue deployed · 89.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $213K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $44K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.