Christian Friends of Israeli Communities
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 412020104
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Falcon, CO, USA
- Phone
- 7196832041
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Religion Related N.E.C.
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,822,721
- Expenses
- $1,617,416
- Assets
- $535,156
- Liabilities
- $15,142
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SONDRA OSTER BARAS (PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- KIMBERLY W TROUP (SECRETARY/TREASURER): $54,300 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Cfoic heartland has stood steadfastly with those jews who are at greatest risk in israel and those whose core values and daily lives are based on biblical principles.
What it reported doing in 2025
In 2025, cfoic heartland contributed $1,198,000.00 to projects in israel. 2025 was a year of remarkable successes and meaningful achievements for the people of biblical israel. Loyal and devoted friends played a significant role! Every hostage in gaza, both living and deceased, was returned from captivity, and israel significantly set back iran's nuclear program during the twelve-day war. At the same time, thanks to dedicated cfoic heartland donors, communities throughout judea and samaria continued to grow and develop, further strengthening their roots in the biblical heartland! Emergency equipment: protecting pioneers$671,482.00 for emergency needs, such as critical security infrastructure and emergency equipment to communities lacking physical perimeters, such as havat gilad and kedumim's new neighborhood of nofei gideon. Also, enabling isolated communities such as naaran to secure the resources needed to construct new central command centers. In addition, several small, underdeveloped communities, composed largely of prefabricated homes, found themselves in grave danger with no nearby bomb shelters. During the twelve-day war with iran, donors provided communities such as bar kochba, nofei nechemiah, and rechelim with the resources to acquire bomb shelters for their residents, which proved invaluable and helped save lives. Community development: strengthening families$159,321.00 for community needs, helping families throughout judea and samaria remain resilient during wartime by supporting the renovation of playgrounds and community gardens. In addition, as the cost of basic necessities continued to rise, donors provided hundreds of needy families in samaria with food vouchers and warm clothing during the cold, rainy winter. Children and youth: supporting the next generation$62,192.00 for youth and children of judea and samaria, playing a vital role in laying a strong foundation for the next generation of pioneers in the biblical heartland. Donors provided computers for 7th and 8th-grade boys at a small religious academy in the hebron hills and helped furnish several youth and young adult centers in both judea and samaria. Plowing the land: planting seeds of healing in the biblical heartland$44,212.00 to partner with pioneering individuals on the ground to establish therapeutic retreats in the biblical heartland for victims of terror and trauma. These initiatives include ruthy's farm horse ranch in alon and avia's farm in the jordan valley. Educational outreach $260,793.00 to produce educational materials, both in print and film, as well as personal outreach to groups from all over the world. Cfoic heartland representatives traveled and spoke to audiences in the united states, canada, the united kingdom, and australia, and created educational programming for tourists in israel, meeting them in cities and communities all over the land. In addition, funds were used to address urgent needs within the communities. A portion of the funds were used to quickly respond to unexpected needs, allowing us to remain agile in the face of emerging challenges.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 56
- Accountability: 79
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 74.9%; rating input score 75
- Program expense ratio: 84.1%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $11.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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: Pass
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Limited
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 11.3%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.33; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.4%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 74.9% of revenue deployed · 84.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $54K · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.