· Public charity
American Friends of Bnai Levy Foundation
Support to indigent individuals, support to other recognized charities, religious activities etc.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 99% of AMERICAN FRIENDS OF BNAI LEVY 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.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 120 grants below total $13,512,880 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $21,979,667 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $8,466,787 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k20 grants · $157k
- $10k–50k53 grants · $1.2M
- $50k–250k35 grants · $3.9M
- $250k+12 grants · $8.3M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Yeshiva Tiferes Meshilem Feis | $3,351,583 |
| Cong Imrie Chine Delkatyn | $1,161,800 |
| Cong Avoides Meshilem Feish | $606,460 |
| Cong Moshe Ben Aron Yide | $580,000 |
| Cong Yetev DJerusalem | $460,000 |
| Cong Chasdei Avos Inc | $374,500 |
| Cong Livyas Chein Inc | $329,000 |
| Gemilas Chasudim Dtosh | $311,302 |
| Cong Keren Ecrah Inc | $293,796 |
| Cong Shar Menachem | $291,000 |
| Cong YI South 8 | $270,000 |
| Cong Bnei Yoel | $254,300 |
| Cong Adas Yrereim | $238,261 |
| Cong Mazon Vetzeida | $215,298 |
| Cong Tosh Monsey | $200,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY22–25, $30k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
Grants abroad, by region — $7.8M on the FY2025 return
Schedule F, as filed: 2 regions, $7.7M to organizations and $162k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: Religious activities · Various recognized charitable organizations in Canada
Stated purpose: Monetary assistance
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. 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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +26% since the first grant, against +2% for the ones you funded once.
162 repeat relationships — 81 still active in FY2025, 81 since wound down; 37 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.7M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- YTYESHIVA TIFERES MESHILEM FEISH DTOSH INC4× · 2022–2025 · $4.9M
- CTCONGREGATION TALMUD TORAH TASHBAR NACHLAS CHAIM9× · 2017–2025 · $3.1M
- SZSHEMESH ZTADUKAH9× · 2017–2025 · $2.9M
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · $500k
- COCONGREGATION ORAH VSIMCHAone grant, 2017 · $420k
- CMCONGREGATION MAYIM CHAYIM INCone grant, 2022 · $300k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
Religious Teaching
Provide financial assistance to needy individuals, and to religious, educational, and charitable organizations in us and abroad.
To foster, promote and advance theological torah study, charity, and practice of orthodox judaism worldwide.
Provide financial assistance to torah and talmudic scholars, as well as to other needy individuals and other organizations that work to promote these purposes.
The furthurance of jewish concepts and religious beliefs.
Religious & charitable- to provide funds to enable the study of torah.
Maintain communal and charitable affairs in accordance with the tradition of the orthodox jewish faith
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mercaz Habochurim and the most unlike its peers is Chesed Shbchesed Inc. 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 field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 13% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
28 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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 28 of the 348 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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
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.
Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Chayim V Chesed · Zelig and Rifky Weiss Family Foundation Inc · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Strulovich Family Foundation Trust · Hf Foundation · Vyazreim Inc · The Schwartz Charitable Foundation Inc · S&E Foundation · I&S Foundation · Gevuois Foundation
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 American Friends of Bnai Levy 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.
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.