Kol HaNearim

Legal name: Kol Hanearim Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812298141
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Great Neck, NY, USA
Phone
860-205-2282
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,546,181
Expenses
$1,585,795
Assets
$460,206
Liabilities
$269,194

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL REIDLER (PRESIDENT/TREASURER)
  • EZRA GONTOWNIK (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TALIA REIDLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TALIA REIDLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $170,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Kol HaNearim aims to provide hope, happiness, and socio/emotional support to Israeli at-risk youth so they can cultivate resilience, confidence, and break the cycle of dysfunction.

What it reported doing in 2024

Kol hanearim organizes summer camps and specially catered year long programming for over 2,000 at-risk youth at its partner children's homes. Throughout the year, kh organizes weekend retreats both in israel and america, marathons, and social events. We also work toprovide volunteering opportunities, including our college volunteering program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 68% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.8%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 82.7%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • 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: 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.6%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.58; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.7%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 84.8% of revenue deployed · 82.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $170K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.