Hofstra University
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 111630906
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Hempstead, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5164636820
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- University or Technological Institute
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $733,581,247
- Expenses
- $679,973,371
- Assets
- $1,663,381,335
- Liabilities
- $377,854,680
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
51 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Susan Poser (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Susan Poser (President): $1,339,336 total reported compensation
- Craig Claxton (Head Men's Basketball Coach): $1,118,919 total reported compensation
- Catherine Hennessy (SVP Finance/Treasurer to 5/25): $881,195 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Institution of higher learning (Hofstra University). An icon of two blue hands forming a circle around three interlocking yellow and blue gears, with horizontal lines in the background, symbolizing support and teamwork in engineering or collaboration. As Hofstra University approaches its centennial year in 2035, we are ready for the future. With a vision that leverages the breadth of academic programs and a dedicated community of teachers and scholars, we will innovate across academic programs and in the community to guide students toward any future they can imagine. About the Strategic Plan.
What it reported doing in 2024
Instruction and related academic support, including research and public services, sponsored programs, scholarships, fellowships and other expenses benefiting the community. (Fall 2024 full-time equivalents of 9,944)
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 91% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 81
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 66
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84.3%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 89.2%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.3%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.45; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.6%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 84.3% of revenue deployed · 89.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 30 of 30 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $606.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.3M · 51 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $21.1M reported
- Consistency: 46 of 46 current checks pass
- Schedules: 13 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 20 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.