The Israel Bridge

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010848028
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA
Phone
8582466855
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$438,867
Expenses
$182,932
Assets
$540,595
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

People named in this filing

  • TERRI BONOFF (BOARD MEMBER)
  • DON BROCKHAUS (BOARD MEMBER)
  • DELILAH COHEN (BOARD MEMBER)

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

Assisting israeli student-athletes in obtaining u.s. College athletic scholarships, building community abroad, and developing the next generation of leaders and ambassadors for israel.

What it reported doing in 2025

Educational webinars and workshops: during the year, the organization conducted three educational webinars, each attended by approximately 20 participants. Topics included life as an international student-athlete in the united states, career development, personal branding, and social media presence. Student advising and mentorship: the israel bridge professional team provided individualized advising, support, and mentorship to approximately 250 student-athletes during 2025, helping them address academic, personal, athletic, and transitional challenges associated with studying and competing in the united states. Community building and outreach: the israel bridge currently maintains a network of approximately 460 israeli student-athletes enrolled at more than 220 colleges and universities throughout the united states. The organizations long-term objective is to expand its outreach and services to support as many members of this student population as possible through financial assistance, educational resources, mentorship, professional development, and community-building initiatives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 21%; rating input score 21
  • Program expense ratio: 50.3%; rating input score 50
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: 58.3%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.96; rating input score 69; 69th 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: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 22% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 21% of revenue deployed · 50.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $92K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 21/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.