Republican Jewish Coalition
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521386172
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, United States
- Phone
- 202-638-6688
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $13,373,014
- Expenses
- $12,403,863
- Assets
- $4,294,171
- Liabilities
- $2,143,323
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
62 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MATTHEW BROOKS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MATTHEW BROOKS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $1,133,479 total reported compensation
- ALEX SIEGEL (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $519,919 total reported compensation
- NOAH SILVERMAN (DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS): $207,285 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
We seek to foster and enhance ties between the American Jewish community and Republican decision-makers. We work to engage Republican leadership in government and the Republican Party with the concerns and public policy priorities of the Jewish community. The RJC also articulates and advocates for Republican ideas and policies within the Jewish community. We are committed to helping Republicans win the electoral successes that lead to the policy accomplishments that benefit the Jewish community and the nation as a whole. We work to make the RJC the uniquely effective and respected Jewish Republican voice in Washington and across the country.
What it reported doing in 2024
Programs seek to educate and advocate support for israel as well as other foreign affairs and domestic issues of importance to the jewish community.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 57% for direct work, and 43% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 69
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 72.3%; rating input score 72
- Program expense ratio: 77.9%; rating input score 78
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.2%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 17.5%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 72.3% of revenue deployed · 77.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 49 of 49 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 62 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $1.6M reported
- Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.