Helping Israel Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204981268
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Boca Raton, FL, United States
Phone
561-869-4606
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$800,402
Expenses
$816,300
Assets
$679,367
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Matthew H Maschler (President)
  • Jack Silverman (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Matthew H Maschler (President)
  • Jack Silverman (Vice President)
  • Lisa Auerbach (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Helping Israel Fund was started in 2006 as an overseas initiative to support Israel-based organizations assisting members of the Israel Defense Forces. The mission of Helping Israel Fund is to raise funds for organizations that have a valuable contribution to the security and safety of Israel. …and other organizations whose projects align with our mission, such as: Ascent, Beit Almog, Chayal el Chayal, Garin Tzabar, the Lone Soldier Center, Or Me’Ophir, Thank Israeli Soldiers, and United Hatzalah. Many other organizations have been vetted. Helping Israel Fund chooses to support organizations whose projects align with our mission. Our Work. Our Work Helping Needy Soldiers.

What it reported doing in 2025

Helping Israel Fund, Inc. is organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes in order to raise funds for specific projects in Israel which render financial assitance to individuals and organizations. Such projects include environmental, youth educational and training programs, educational programs for women and other social, educational, charitable and cultural programs and activities within the meaning of Sections 501(c)(3) of the Internl Revenue Code.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $50.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 67.1%; rating input score 67; 36th 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.83; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 90% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $716K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 20 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.