Skip to content
Abraham and Bessie Hann Charitable Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Abraham and Bessie Hann Charitable Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$103k
Granted FY2025still arriving
14
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$51k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Religion$1.1MEducation$55kInternational$9kFood & Nutrition$8kHuman Services$6kHealth$250
02FY2025 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k12 grants · $26k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $51k
$1,800
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Congregation Ahavas Achim$51,300
Rabbi Pesach Raymon Yeshiva$25,300
RJJ School$5,300
Yeshiva Shaarei Tzion$5,300
Yeshivat Netivot Montessori$3,800
Highland Park Community Kollel$1,800
Tomchei Shabbos$1,800
Mesivtha Tifereth Jerusalem of America$1,800
BAVI CHESED FUND$1,500
Rutgers Jewish Xperience$1,000
Khal Chasidim of Highland Park$1,000
CONGREGATION DARCHEI NOAM$1,000
MY EXTENDED FAMILY$1,000
Individual grant recipient$750
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

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

show:

Its human-services grants (FY22–25, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 21% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%MY EXTENDED FAMILY: $1k → 20%The Raritan valley Orthodox Jewish Community Association: $2k → 8%The Raritan valley Orthodox Jewish Community Association: $1k → 8%The Raritan valley Orthodox Jewish Community Association: $1k → 8%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 31 repeat orgs$79k to everyone else

31 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2025, 20 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

31
18

Total granted

$1.1M
$76k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+30%
+121%

Still filing today

32%
22%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationReligionInternationalHuman ServicesArts & CultureHealthOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • YN
    YESHIVAT NETIVOT MONTESSORI INC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $15k · revenue +30%
  • RL
    Rutgers Learning Network Inc
    8× · 2017–2025 · $12k · revenue +276%
  • RH
    Rutgers Hillel Corporation
    6× · 2017–2023 · $10k · revenue +67%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $47k
  • RC
    RABBINICAL COUNCIL OF AMERICAgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $4k · revenue +29%
  • EO
    Emunah Of America
    one grant, 2017 · $4k
How this is measured

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

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
2
Kollel Nefesh Hachaim Inc
Education
3
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

—
4
Ziv Israel Association
—
5
Ohr Yisrael Yeshiva Inc

Ohr Yisrael is a religious institution that provides religious services and instruction to Rabbis and community members.

Religion
6
The Nochim & Rivka Zeldes Foundation
—
7
Zohar Hatorah Inc

Religious School

Religion
8
Torah Temimah Jerusalem

The school trains advanced talmudic scholars, enabling them to become high level teachers and religious leaders in israel and the united states using specific methodology combining traditional talmudic study with innovative learning…

Education
9
University of Judaism Foundation
—
10
Kollel Ameilim of Far Rockaway
Religion
11
Sherit Isroel
—
12
Tamim Academies
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Emunah of America Inc; the most unlike its peers is Kav LNoar Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

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

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 15 of the 52 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
10/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $257,200 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCONGREGATION AHAVAS ACHIM: $220,300 · OtherCONGREGATION AHAVAS ACHIMRABBI PESACH RAYMON YESHIVA: $197,700 · OtherRABBI PESACH RAYMON YESHIVAAhavas Achim Rabbi's Discretionary Fund: $134,800 · OtherAhavas Achim Rabbi's Discretionary FundRJJ School: $82,000 · OtherRJJ SchoolYESHIVA SHAAREI TZION: $71,000 · OtherYESHIVA SHAAREI TZIONIndividual grant recipient: $47,300 · Other+30 more: $140,750 · Other+30 moreYESHIVAT NETIVOT MONTESSORI INC: $15,300 · EducationAMERICAN FRIENDS OF KOLLEL SHAAREIHORAAH: $7,000 · EducationThe Frisch School: $6,000 · EducationRABBI ISAAC ELCHANAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: $5,300 · EducationYESHIVA UNIVERSITY: $2,000 · EducationRutgers Learning Network Inc: $12,000 · Arts & CultureYESHIVA TIFERES NAFTOLI: $4,000 · ReligionRABBINICAL COUNCIL OF AMERICA: $3,600 · ReligionAMERICAN FRIENDS OF CHASDEI LEV: $2,328 · ReligionPROJECT INSPIRE INC: $1,500 · ReligionEMUNAH OF AMERICA INC: $7,500 · InternationalKav LNoar Foundation: $1,800 · InternationalRARITAN VALLEY ORTHODOX JEWISH COMM: $3,800 · Human ServicesMY EXTENDED FAMILY INC: $1,000 · Human ServicesBIKUR CHOLIM OF RARITAN VALLEY: $3,500 · Health
Other$1,151,050Education$35,600Arts & Culture$12,000Religion$11,428International$9,300Human Services$4,800Health$3,500

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetYESHIVAT NETIVOT MONTESSORI INC: $15,300 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetRutgers Learning Network Inc: $12,000 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetRutgers Hillel Corporation: $9,500 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetEMUNAH OF AMERICA INC: $7,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetThe Frisch School: $6,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetRABBI ISAAC ELCHANAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: $5,300 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetYESHIVA TIFERES NAFTOLI: $4,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetRARITAN VALLEY ORTHODOX JEWISH COMM: $3,800 over 4y, 3.0% of budgetBIKUR CHOLIM OF RARITAN VALLEY: $3,500 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF CHASDEI LEV: $2,328 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetYESHIVA UNIVERSITY: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPROJECT INSPIRE INC: $1,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

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

  • Who funds YESHIVAT NETIVOT MONTESSORI INC ↗
  • Who funds Rutgers Learning Network Inc ↗
  • Who funds Rutgers Hillel Corporation ↗
  • Who funds EMUNAH OF AMERICA INC ↗
  • Who funds The Frisch School ↗
  • Who funds RABBI ISAAC ELCHANAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA TIFERES NAFTOLI ↗
  • Who funds RARITAN VALLEY ORTHODOX JEWISH COMM ↗
  • Who funds RABBINICAL COUNCIL OF AMERICA ↗
  • Who funds BIKUR CHOLIM OF RARITAN VALLEY ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF CHASDEI LEV ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds Kav LNoar Foundation ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Jewish Communal FundThe Ojc FundFjcLefkovits Family Foun…The Gottlieb Charitab…The Stern Family Foun…The Jonathan & Esther…Cross River Community…Verizon FoundationNational Philanthropi…Gs Donor Advised Phil…Morgan Stanley Global…
Jewish Communal FundNY28× affinity16 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · The Ojc Fund · Fjc · Lefkovits Family Foundation · The Gottlieb Charitable Trust · The Stern Family Foundation · The Jonathan & Esther B Rosenberg Foundation · Cross River Community Foundation · Verizon Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Abraham and Bessie Hann Charitable Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Abraham and Bessie Hann Charitable Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 70%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • The Frisch School: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
7get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 52 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its 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.

Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Abraham and Bessie Hann’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home