AMCHA Initiative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460774311
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2012
Location
Foster City, CA, USA
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Intergroup, Race Relations
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$557,124
Expenses
$432,461
Assets
$883,301
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Tammi Rossman-Benjamin (President)
  • Leila Beckwith (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Tammi Rossman-Benjamin (President): $101,150 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 specific purpose of this corporation is to investigate, document and report incidents of anti-Semitism that occur in institutions of higher education in America and to educate the Jewish community and other members of the public about such incidents and other manifestations of harassment and intimidation of Jewish students on college and university campuses, as well as to organize, undertake and support efforts to combat and remedy anti-Jewish bigotry and any activities relations thereto.

What it reported doing in 2024

INVESTIGATING: launched an Anti-Zionist Faculty Barometer ranking 700+ campuses based on faculty academic boycotters, anti-Zionist statements, and Faculty for Justice in Palestine activity after AMCHAs previous reports documented a surge in anti-Zionist faculty advocacy as well as detailed FJPs central role in escalating antisemitic incidents and pushing forward the academic boycott of Israel; providedcomprehensive dossiers on faculty and departmental activity to policymakers (Georgetown, UC Berkeley, UCLA, CUNY) in federal agencies; filed a Title VI complaint regarding such activity at UCSC.DOCUMENTING: provided crucial, on-going, real-time documentation of antisemitic incidents in our decade-running publicly accessible database of 11,000 antisemitic incidents on over 700 U.S. campuses, including adding 1,300 incidents to the database which recieves 40,000 unique visitors monthly; built an in-house AI system to process 100,000+ articles and social media posts amid post-10/7/23 surges; expanded data-sharing partnerships; witnessed AMCHA data cited in 10 major reports, including by the ADL, Indiana University and others.EDUCATING: featured in 120+ media outlets; produced two educational video campaigns(#NoAcademicBDS, #NoFacultyHarm); helped launch a weekly podcast on campus antisemitism with an esteemed professor; provided expert consultation to federal agencies, congressional staffers and Jewish organizations; shaped cross-sector strategies to combat antisemitism; disseminated AMCHA's analyses and approaches to combatting campus antisemitism via publishing op-eds in Edsource, Los Angeles DailyNews, Jewish Journal and other publications as well as sending 13 bulletins.COMBATING: mobilized grassroots (20,000+ activists), coalition (150 organizations) and media campaigns that advanced AMCHAs core advocacy initiatives to combat the adoption of antisemitic curricula, curb the implementation of academic boycotts of Israel on U.S. campuses, and ensure equal and adequate protection for Jewish and Zionist college/universtiy students. Efforts resulted in defeating two major California initiatives promoting antisemitic ethnic studies curricula; raising awareness of faculty-driven antisemitism on 170 campuses with a national 120-group campaign that urged safeguards against faculty abuse; and an-AMCHA expos of UCSCs Ethnic Studies department prompting the UC Regents to bar departments from using official websites for political and antisemitic advocacy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 5
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.6%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 92.1%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $31.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 22.4%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.04; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.4%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.2% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.6% of revenue deployed · 92.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 9 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $398K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $101K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.