Skip to content

· Private foundation

Achva Foundation

Its FY2020 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$38k
Granted FY2020
68
Grants FY2020
1
States reached
$6k
Largest
01What it funds
0167% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2020.

Religion$76kYouth Development$1kArts & Culture$686Community Improvement$660Health$386Public Safety & Disaster$300Education$140Crime & Legal$122Other$0
02FY2020 · 68 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$100
Median grant
1
States reached
$616k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Cong Yetev Lev$6,100
Cong Yetev Lev$4,600
Individual grant recipient$4,000
Individual grant recipient$3,600
Cong Yetev Lev$3,600
Individual grant recipient$2,000
Cong Yetev Lev$1,300
Talmud Torah Dnitra$1,200
UTA$1,200
Cong Yetev Lev$1,000
Congregation Ohel Torah$1,000
Chesed Volunteer of Williamsburg$1,000
Ladies Bikur Cholim D'satmar$400
Kolel Ahavas Zion Siebenburgen$400
Individual grant recipient$375
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–20) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%Cong Bnei Yoel D'satmar: $2k → 14%Keren V'ezer: $2k → 20%CIO of Argentina: $420 → 14%Talmud Torah Dnitra: $1k → 20%UTA of KJ: $400 → 14%Keren V'Ezer: $500 → 20%RCCS: $360 → 20%RCCS: $360 → 20%RCCS: $360 → 20%Bikur Cholim B'Derech Kuvoid: $1k → 20%Muos Chitim of Cong Yetev Lev: $7k → 20%Congregation Ohel Torah: $1k → 20%Chesed Volunteer of Williamsburg: $1k → 20%Clymer Coffee: $375 → 20%Withdrawal Charity: $29k → 20%UTA: $10k → 20%Cong Yetev Lev: $8k → 20%Cong Yetev Lev: $6k → 20%Cong Yetev Lev D'Satmar: $5k → 20%Cong Yetev Lev: $5k → 20%Muoes Chitim of Cong Yetev Lev: $4k → 20%Cong Yetev Lev D'Satmar: $4k → 20%United Talmudical: $4k → 20%United Talmudical: $4k → 20%Cong Yetev Lev: $4k → 20%Muoes Chitim of Cong Yetev Lev: $4k → 20%Cong Yetev Lev D'Satmar: $2k → 20%Mesivta Shvil Hatorah: $2k → 20%Cong Yetev Lev D'Satmar: $2k → 20%Cong Yetev Lev: $1k → 20%UTA: $1k → 20%Keren Hatzolah: $1k → 20%UTA: $1k → 20%Cong Yetev Lev: $1k → 20%Muoes Chitim of Cong Yetev Lev: $1k → 20%Satmar Bikur Cholim: $700 → 20%UTA: $680 → 20%Kollel Seibenurgen: $600 → 20%Ladies Bikur Cholim DSatmar: $514 → 20%Cong Yetev Lev D'Satmar: $500 → 20%Rabbi Meir Baal Haness Kolel Ahavas Tzion Siebenburgen: $500 → 20%Congregation Klienvardin Yereslov: $500 → 20%UTA: $500 → 20%Kolel Ahavas Zion Siebenburgen: $400 → 20%Ladies Bikur Cholim D'satmar: $400 → 20%Cong Yetev Lev: $375 → 20%Kolel Avreichem of UTA: $890 → 20%Kollel Avreichem of UTA: $500 → 20%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.

43%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$60k · 28 repeat orgs$78k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +300% since the first grant, against +274% for those funded once.

28 repeat relationships: 19 still active in FY2020, 9 since wound down; 24 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

28
84

Total granted

$60k
$62k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+300%
+274%

Still filing today

7%
2%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 57% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $16k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20
HealthPublic Safety & DisasterReligionEducationOther
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

  • CY
    Cong Yetev Lev
    2× · 2017–2020 · $24k
  • U
    UTA
    4× · 2017–2020 · $13k
  • MC
    Muoes Chitim of Cong Yetev Lev
    2× · 2018–2019 · $9k

Funded once

  • WC
    Withdrawal Charity
    one grant, 2017 · $29k
  • CY
    Cong Yetev Lev D'Satmar
    one grant, 2018 · $14k
  • MC
    Muos Chitim of Cong Yetev Lev
    one grant, 2017 · $7k
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 136 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/7
Grantees still filing
4/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Withdrawal Charity: $29,048 · OtherWithdrawal CharityCong Yetev Lev: $24,475 · OtherCong Yetev LevCong Yetev Lev D'Satmar: $13,820 · OtherCong Yetev Lev D'SatmarUTA: $13,480 · OtherUTAMuoes Chitim of Cong Yetev Lev: $8,900 · OtherMuoes Chitim of Cong Yetev LevIndividual grant recipient: $7,600 · OtherIndividual grant recipientMuos Chitim of Cong Yetev Lev: $7,000 · Other+123 more: $32,487 · Other+123 moreBIKUR CHOLIM INC: $250 · HealthREFUAH HELPLINE INCDBA REFUAH RESOURCES: $100 · HealthKAPAYIM INC: $36 · HealthHATZOLAH OF WILLIAMSBURG INC: $300 · Public Safety & DisasterMIDRASH LMAN ACHI INC: $100 · EducationTRUE TORAH JEWS INC: $20 · Religion
Other$136,810Health$386Public Safety & Disaster$300Education$100Religion$20

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHATZOLAH OF WILLIAMSBURG INC: $300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetBIKUR CHOLIM INC: $250 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetOHR BACHOSHECH INC: $122 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMIDRASH LMAN ACHI INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetREFUAH HELPLINE INCDBA REFUAH RESOURCES: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKAPAYIM INC: $36 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTRUE TORAH JEWS INC: $20 over 1y, 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 HATZOLAH OF WILLIAMSBURG INC ↗
  • Who funds BIKUR CHOLIM INC ↗

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.

The Ojc FundNY41.9× affinity23 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Bochner Foundation · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · Keren Ish Foundation · A&E Hauer Family Foundation · Nimlach Foundation · Zelig and Rifky Weiss Family Foundation Inc · Kanfei Yoneh Foundation · R' Shaya Ben Moshe Foundation · Blum Foundation · Strulovich Family Foundation Trust · Feldman Tzdukeh Fund Foundation

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 Achva Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Achva Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report 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, FY20–24
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Achva Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Achva Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 136 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Achva’s filings →

    More from the funding graph