Abrams Hebrew Academy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
216001415
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2023
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Yardley, PA, United States
Phone
215-493-1800
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Judaism
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,852,786
Expenses
$6,619,279
Assets
$3,082,505
Liabilities
$1,595,091

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEROME MARCUS (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JEROME MARCUS (PRESIDENT)
  • JOE GLASSMAN (1ST VICE PRE)
  • STEPHEN MILSTEIN (2ND VICE PRE)

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 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide an affordable Jewish education by encouraging and supporting students to grow as disciplined, creative, lifelong learners, grounded in Jewish heritage and committed to Zionism and the centrality of Israel. Individuals who pay PA state tax may qualify to participate through a Special Purpose Entity, an LLC through which an individual’s PA tax dollars become tax credits for scholarship support. Pennsylvania Educational Improvement Tax Credit Program (EITC) Since 2001, the Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) program has allowed eligible Pennsylvania businesses to and individuals to receive tax credits for contributions to approved organizations, like Abrams Hebrew Academy. The program has been instrumental in Abrams mission to provide an affordable Jewish education to students from all socioeconomic backgrounds. EITC funds make financial support available to students who...

What it reported doing in 2023

Providing a hebrew education for children grades k through 8.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 73% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 65% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.4%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 78.1%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $239.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.4%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 75.4% of revenue deployed · 78.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $5.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2012 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.