Skip to content

· Public charity

Agudas Tov V'Chesed Inc

To provide grants for needy individuals and organizations.

$2.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$270k
Largest
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$4.5MHuman Services$794kInternational$301k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $598,735, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,105,460 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,506,725 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $296k
  • $250k+1 grant · $270k
$66,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$106k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONG KEREN YESHIU$270,400
TOV LATET$180,000
CHOCHMAT SHLOMO USA INC$66,000
KEREN CHASANIM OF SAAD L TALMID$50,000
AHAVAS TZEDUKAH VACHESED$25,000
CONG EIZER LBRACHA$7,335
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 (FY18–25, $721k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%CHINU VCHISDU INC: $19k → 20%TOV LATET: $180k → 20%TOV LATET: $175k → 20%AHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY: $110k → 20%TOV LATET: $75k → 20%TOV LATET: $67k → 20%TOV LATET: $35k → 20%TOV LATET: $25k → 20%TOV LATET: $20k → 20%AHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY: $15k → 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.

Grants abroad, by region: $1.5M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region, $874k to organizations and $627k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Middle East and North Africa$1.5M · 100% · 1 grant · 73 people

Stated purpose: SUPPORT OPERATIONS · GRANT TO THE IMPOVERISHED

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.5M · 11 repeat orgs$1.1M to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
15

Total granted

$4.5M
$750k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-13%
+100%

Still filing today

18%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 43% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $344k 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
Human ServicesPhilanthropyInternationalOther
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

  • CE
    CONGREGATION EZRAS YISROEL
    2× · 2018–2019 · $1.5M
  • CY
    CHASDEI YETEV LEV INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $683k · 98% of their budget
  • TL
    TOV LATET INC
    7× · 2019–2025 · $577k · revenue -13% · 40% of their budget

Funded once

  • BC
    BEIS CHINUCH L BONOIS OHEL CHANAH- DARKEI CHESED
    one grant, 2017 · $300k
  • SA
    SIFREI ALGAZI
    one grant, 2017 · $100k
  • CO
    CONG OHR HATALMUD OHR HESHABBOS & OHR KITOV INC
    one grant, 2018 · $50k
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
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
3
Yeshivat Leluv of Jerusalem Inc

Charitable work to help people in need

—
4
Chabad Lametayel Inc

encourage and facilitate the observance of traditional orthodox Jewish practices around the world.

—
5
American Friends of Yeshivat Nachalat Yossef

The organization will provide financial assistance to educational institutions that promote the observance of the jewish religion, its laws and traditions, and sacred texts, including yeshivat nachalat yossef, located in jerusalem, israel.

Religion
6
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
—
7
The Yad Moach Vlev Foundation
Philanthropy
8
Yad Laniyim
Philanthropy
9
Yad Yosef Foundation
Philanthropy
10
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
11
Beis Yosef Chaim Inc

To provide financial assistance to religious and charitable organizations worldwide to help them continue their activities.

Philanthropy
12
Chasdei Yakov Foundation Inc
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ahavat Yisroel Humanity Inc; the most unlike its peers is Naalah At Yerushalyim Inc. 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

10 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. 10 of the 29 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/10
Grantees still filing
5/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONGREGATION EZRAS YISROEL: $1,520,000 · OtherCONGREGATION EZRAS YISROELCHASDEI YETEV LEV INC: $683,000 · OtherCHASDEI YETEV LEV INCBINYAN YERUSHLAIM: $559,500 · OtherBINYAN YERUSHLAIMKEREN CHASANIM OF SAAD L TALMID INC: $355,860 · OtherKEREN CHASANIM OF SAAD L TALMID INCCONGREGATION OHR CHAIM: $330,000 · OtherCONGREGATION OHR CHAIMBEIS CHINUCH L BONOIS OHEL CHANAH- DARKEI CHESED: $300,000 · OtherBEIS CHINUCH L BONOIS OHEL CHANAH- DARKEI CHESEDCONG KEREN YESHIU: $270,400 · OtherCONG KEREN YESHIUCONGREGATION AHAVAS TZDOKAH VCHESED INC: $172,775 · Other+14 more: $652,835 · Other+14 moreTOV LATET INC: $576,500 · Human ServicesTOV LATET INCAHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC: $125,000 · Human ServicesAHAVAT YISROEL…+1 more: $19,000 · Human ServicesWORLD OF GIVING INC: $27,800 · PhilanthropyNaalah At Yerushalyim Inc: $25,000 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER-BEI SHEMESH: $10,000 · PhilanthropyYESHIVAS NACHLAS BNEI SHIMON: $7,000 · International
Other$4,844,370Human Services$720,500Philanthropy$62,800International$7,000

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 budgetCHASDEI YETEV LEV INC: $683,000 over 2y, 98% of budgetTOV LATET INC: $576,500 over 7y, 40% of budgetAHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC: $125,000 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetCHOCHMAT SHLOMO USA INC CO HERBERT SCHUSTER: $66,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetWORLD OF GIVING INC: $27,800 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetChinu V Chisdu Inc: $19,000 over 1y, 9.6% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER-BEI SHEMESH: $10,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetYESHIVAS NACHLAS BNEI SHIMON: $7,000 over 1y, 1.3% 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 CHASDEI YETEV LEV INC ↗
  • Who funds TOV LATET INC ↗
  • Who funds AHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC ↗
  • Who funds CHOCHMAT SHLOMO USA INC CO HERBERT SCHUSTER ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD LAYELED ↗
  • Who funds WORLD OF GIVING INC ↗
  • Who funds Naalah At Yerushalyim Inc ↗
  • Who funds Chinu V Chisdu Inc ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER-BEI SHEMESH ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVAS NACHLAS BNEI SHIMON ↗

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 FundNY35.3× affinity19 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · O a E Pinsk Karlin Inc · Tov Latet Inc · Vaad Harabbanim L'Inyanei Tzeduka Inc · Friends of Mosdot Goor · Chavie Stern Family Foundation Inc · The Basch Family Foundation · American Friends of Bnai Levy Foundation · Donors Fund Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management 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 Agudas Tov V'Chesed Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Agudas Tov V'Chesed Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 29 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 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 Agudas Tov V'Chesed’s filings →

    More from the funding graph