The Gimmel Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
029123408
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Woodbury, NY, USA
Phone
5166928500
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$379,733
Expenses
$344,782
Assets
$1,660,672
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Harris Guedalia (President)
  • Eitan Kupietzky (Vice President)
  • Stuart Geller (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Harris Guedalia (President)
  • Rose Edinger (Secretary)
  • Eitan Kupietzky (Vice President)

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

The Gimmel Foundation has been working since its inception in 1973, in the greater Kiryat Malachi Area in Israel. The Foundation offers a variety of after school programs to the children of the area.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Gimmel Foundation has been working since 1973 in the greater Kiryst Malachi area in Israel (The Southern Region).The Foundation offers a variety of after school programs to the children of the area. During this time, the Foundation has established after school programs in 13 schools and 14 community centers for new immigrant Ethiopoian and Israeli children; initiated the pyramid teaching/tutoring program; encouraged visits by teachers and tutors to homes of children to help with social problems; distributed food and clothing; maintained a summer day camp. This has resulted in school grades improving and children feeling better about school and particularly their Teachers. In addition, Gimmel has encouraged student community service, integration into local social setting and the acquisition of a work ethic.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 93% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 41
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 90.6%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 50%; rating input score 50; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 20%; rating input score 20; 17th 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.2%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.82; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.6% of revenue deployed · 90.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $312K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 20/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.