University of Southern California Hillel Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954867366
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2137479135
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,527,233
Expenses
$1,937,935
Assets
$5,992,229
Liabilities
$189,245

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID COHN (Executive Dir.): $182,338 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 create an informed, celebratory and satisfying jewish community for students at the university of southern California, to deepen jewish identity through social, intellectual and spiritual participation, to offer diversified opportunities for engagement and understanding tailored to students' special interests and needs, to support jewish interests and build jewish community within the university of southern California campus environment, and to develop jews who will make thetransition from campus to community as positive, identified jews with astake in the jewish future.

What it reported doing in 2024

Hillel at usc strives to engage and support all jewish students who are away from home for the first time in their lives. Knowing that more than one of two students come from an interfaith household, we also support the many unaffiliated students along their jewish journeys through an exploration of their passions and interests as jews and as young adults. Through an intensive effort to get to know the broader jewish student body, we are better able to foster the meaningful jewishexperiences of our students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.6%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 67%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -26.9%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.09; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.6% of revenue deployed · 67% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 20 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $182K · 20 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 40/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.