The Assistance Fund

Legal name: The Assistance Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270270731
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Orlando, FL, USA
Phone
8772454412
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Health - General and Rehabilitative N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$284,709,120
Expenses
$230,788,273
Assets
$565,555,605
Liabilities
$17,292,138

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIELLE VIZCAINO (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIELLE VIZCAINO (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $567,706 total reported compensation
  • GERALD LAURIA (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $514,068 total reported compensation
  • STEVEN ALSENE (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $457,421 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To help insured people with life-changing diseases overcome the financial barriers preventing them from accessing treatment.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, the assistance fund (taf) provided over $213 million in financial assistance to approximately 73,000 patients. Taf launched nine new disease programs in 2025, bringing the total number of diseases covered to over 100 (including 65 rare diseases). Taf assisted nearly 5,000 patients with health insurance premiums and other incidental medical expenses. Taf provides assistance to patients on a calendar-year basis and offers annual reenrollment for most disease programs, subject to availability of funding. Ninety-five percent (95%) of patients who applied for reenrollment for 2025 were approved. Nearly one-quarter of taf patients receive assistance across multiple years.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.8%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 95.1%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $153.49 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.3%; rating input score 99; 46th 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; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.9%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.45; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.5%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
  • Where the money goes: 78.8% of revenue deployed · 95.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $219.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $568K · 22 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.7M reported
  • Consistency: 45 of 47 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • 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.