AU Hillel

Legal name: American University Hillel Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
526066696
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, United States
Phone
202-885-3324
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$654,821
Expenses
$518,815
Assets
$186,580
Liabilities
$6,755

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jason Benkendorf (Executive Director)
  • Amy Lampert (Vice President)
  • Eli Engelbourg (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jason Benkendorf (Executive Director): $143,064 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Hillel enriches the lives of Jewish students so that they may enrich the Jewish people and the world. We seek to engage every Jewish student, inspiring in each one an enduring commitment to Jewish life.

What it reported doing in 2024

Sabbath and Holiday Programming: Hillel works with students to create meaningful Sabbath and holiday experiences. An average of 50+ students participate in Sabbath programming each week, and more than 700 unique students participated in Sabbath and holiday programming over the course of the year. Highlights this year included our pre- Rosh Hashanah Apple Fest on the Quad; Shabbat Across AU, through which 20 different dinners happened around and off campus; and the expansion of "Shabbat moments" at Friday evening theater rehearsals and performances.

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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.2%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 58.2%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 20.8%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.6%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 46.2% of revenue deployed · 58.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $302K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $143K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 46/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.