Bnai Brith Hillel Foundation at Brooklyn College

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
116036253
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Brooklyn, NY, USA
Phone
7188591151
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,536,440
Expenses
$1,383,221
Assets
$4,746,741
Liabilities
$143,990

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NADYA DRUKKER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • NELSON BRAFF (PRESIDENT)
  • MARILYN BUTLER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BARBARA GERBER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • PETER MARRON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARC MELLON (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • NADYA DRUKKER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $196,414 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To strengthen jewish identity among the colleges jewish students; to sustain and develop their commitment to israel; to increase understanding both between jews and between jews and others; to foster a climate of tolerance through a pluralistic approach.

What it reported doing in 2024

Tanger hillel organizes and facilitates social action initiaves that reflect our core values of responsibilty to others and to the broader community.these programsbring together students from diverse backgroundsto engage in meaningful service, build relationships, and challenge assumpyions through experiences.signature initiaves include an after school program for children from a local homeless shelter, passover food deliveries for elderly individuals in need, bllod drives, clothing drives and other volunteerr opportunities.through this work students not only contribute to the well being of others but develop a strong sense of purpose , emphaty and civic responsibilty.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.2%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th 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: 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.43; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.2%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.2% of revenue deployed · 70.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 27 of 27 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $974K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $196K · 25 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.