Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

A&E Hauer Family Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$63k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$63k
Largest
01What you fund
01

What you funded, over time

By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 100% of A&E Hauer Family Foundation’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.

02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$63,193
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Misc Charity$63,193
02The need
03

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–21, $391) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 37% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Achiezer: $198 → 6%Achiezer: $50 → 6%Bonei Olam: $100 → 20%Misaskim: $25 → 20%A Time: $18 → 20%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge
repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$479k · 142 repeat orgs$76k to everyone else

142 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 141 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

142
270

Total granted

$479k
$76k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+21%
+33%

Still filing today

4%
5%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesReligionHealthInternationalPhilanthropyFood & NutritionOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • RH
    REFUAH HELPLINE INCDBA REFUAH RESOURCES
    3× · 2020–2022 · $450 · revenue +115%
  • AC
    ACHIEZER COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $248 · revenue +16%
  • MU
    MIKVAH USA INC
    4× · 2017–2021 · $180 · revenue +61%

Funded once

  • HF
    Heritage Foundation
    one grant, 2018 · $11k
  • UT
    United Talmudical Academy
    one grant, 2017 · $8k
  • C
    CKCY
    one grant, 2017 · $4k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Mishken Chaim Rivnits

Assistance to the indigent

Religion
2
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
3
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
4
Ezreinu Inc
Health
5
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
6
Zicron Eliyahu Inc
7
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
8
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
9
Chevras Shabbos Kodesh Podcast Fellowship
Religion
10
Avodat Avraham Inc
Religion
11
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

12
Keren Avraham Shmuel Inc Wachman
Philanthropy

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chayim V Chesed and the most unlike its peers is Keren Torah Vchesed. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 24 years old; the field is 13. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%6%<5yr16%16%5–10yr21%12%10–20yr22%47%20–35yr13%16%35–55yr6%4%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%1%<5yr16%11%5–10yr21%19%10–20yr22%30%20–35yr13%38%35–55yr6%1%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close 1% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
1%1/87
the rest of the field
11%
2,120/19,432

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

04the grantee network

21 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 21 of the 412 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/21
Grantees still filing
17/21
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Misc Charity — $121,546 · OtherMisc CharityIndividual grant recipient — $53,036 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTov Vchesed — $30,200 · OtherTov VchesedCong Yetev Lev — $25,048 · OtherCONG OHEL TORAH — $23,418 · OtherIndividual grant recipient — $21,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient — $18,361 · Other+187 more — $244,799 · Other+187 moreREFUAH HELPLINE INCDBA REFUAH RESOURCES — $450 · HealthBIKUR CHOLIM INC — $250 · HealthVYAZREIM INC — $400 · Public BenefitACHIEZER COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER INC — $248 · Human ServicesYETEV LEV INC — $180 · PhilanthropyMIKVAH USA INC — $180 · Religion
Other$537,408Health$700Public Benefit$400Human Services$248Philanthropy$180Religion$180

Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetOHR BACHOSHECH INC — $480 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetREFUAH HELPLINE INCDBA REFUAH RESOURCES — $450 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetVYAZREIM INC — $400 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBIKUR CHOLIM INC — $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetACHIEZER COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER INC — $248 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMIKVAH USA INC — $180 over 4y, 0.0% of budget
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Ojc FundNY75.8× affinity63 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · S&E Foundation · Blum Foundation · Zelig and Rifky Weiss Family Foundation Inc · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · Bochner Foundation · R' Shaya Ben Moshe Foundation · Keren Ish Foundation · Kanfei Yoneh Foundation · Nimlach Foundation · Ani Mamin Foundation · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organization A&E Hauer Family Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%your share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 412 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph