Israel Support Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201576669
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2023
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Jerusalem, NY, Israel
Phone
+972-54-594-4554
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Judaism
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$120,961
Expenses
$67,924
Assets
$79,466
Liabilities
$22,000

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Marshall Shapiro (President)
  • Yisroel Stefansky (Executive Director/CFO)

People named in this filing

  • Marshall Shapiro (President)
  • Yisroel Stefansky (Executive Director/CFO)
  • Dr Cory Robert Shapiro (Secretary)

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 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Empowering Israel’s Future, Together—ISF bridges the gaps with military aid, emergency medical support, and humanitarian projects, supporting IDF soldiers and helping individuals and families in need across Israel. Understanding real needs is at the core of our humanitarian projects. Whether it’s feeding the hungry, clothing the ragged, or aiding families in distress, our mission is to alleviate the burdens carried by the struggling. Through a network of compassionate donors and volunteers, we respond to every call of aid, making a tangible difference in the lives of individuals and families. Our projects aim not only to provide immediate relief but also to foster hope and empowerment, igniting a positive change that resonates through communities across Israel.

What it reported doing in 2023

Support of Needy Families

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 41
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 96.2%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.4%; rating input score 95; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 43.8%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.17; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -20.5% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 54% of revenue deployed · 96.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $65K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.