American Friends of Ariel University Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061652733
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Brooklyn, NY, USA
Phone
7184341628
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$929,117
Expenses
$2,701,725
Assets
$3,826,408
Liabilities
$143,958

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFFREY GOLDFARB (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFFREY GOLDFARB (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $196,072 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide financial support to the university, its professors to further research, and in some cases its students in the form of scholarships. Additionally, some funding is dedicated to furthering the public profile of the university in the us and israel.

What it reported doing in 2020

Provide support in 2020 for the continued development and expansion on these high profile and major donor projects at the university. Major projects in 2020 included the following: - continuation of the construction of the motovich jewish heritage center.- addition and new construction to the schlesinger free electron research center.- expansion of the aba and sisel klurman amphitheater to an added entranceway plaza and park.- continuation of the development of the samson wine research center.- continuation of funding for research and student scholarships at the ariel drug discovery center.- continuation in funding for the mil'shtein student scholarships for excellence in electrical and mechanical engineering.- ariel university medical school scholarships.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 87.3%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -190.8%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.42; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.8% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 24 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $196K · 26 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.