Skip to content
Ayin Tov Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Ayin Tov Family Foundation

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.

$15k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0164% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Religion$28kPhilanthropy$5kHuman Services$3kInternational$253Health$50Housing & Shelter$50Youth Development$50Food & Nutrition$25Other$0
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$14,903
Median grant
1
States reached
$220k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
VARIOUS - SCHEDULE AVAILABALE UPON REQUEST$14,903
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%Chasunah Depot: $3k → 20%Gemach Chasdei Moshe: $3k → 20%MESIVTA TIFERETH ISRAEL OF RIZHIN: $2k → 17%VARIOUS - SCHEDULE AVAILABALE UPON REQUEST: $15k → 20%MISCELLANEOUS CHARITY LESS THAN 1500: $5k → 20%VARIOUS - SCHEDULE AVAILABALE UPON REQUEST: $5k → 20%CHAIM VCHESED: $3k → 20%Miscellaneous Charity Less Than 1000: $3k → 20%Chaim Vchesed: $2k → 20%Kollel Tzemach Tzadik: $2k → 20%Chaim Vchesed: $2k → 20%Kolel Chibas Jerusalem: $2k → 20%Chaim BChesed: $1k → 20%Yeshiva Machzika Hadas: $800 → 20%Chalkei NY Inuhem Inc: $360 → 20%Yeshiva Machzika Hadas: $300 → 20%Kolel Chibat Jerusalem: $72 → 20%Piknach Nefesh Fund: $72 → 20%Mikva Beth Israel: $50 → 20%Yad Lchesed: $50 → 20%YESHIVA OF MACHZIKAI HADAS: $3k → 20%Yeshiva Sanz Klauzenburg: $2k → 20%Kehila Yakov: $2k → 20%Khal Toras Chaim: $2k → 20%Khal Toras Chaim: $2k → 20%Khal Toras Chaim: $1k → 20%Mosdos Chasidei Square: $1k → 20%Chaim B'chesed Kollel Tzemach Tzadik: $1k → 20%Chaim B'chesed Kollel Tzemach Tzadik: $1k → 20%Yeshiva Sanz Klausenbarg: $225 → 20%Mesamche Lev: $72 → 20%Kolel Hibat Jerusalem: $70 → 20%Chesed Lavraham Inc: $70 → 20%Belz Institution in Israel: $56 → 20%Belz Institution in Israel: $56 → 20%Ezras Yisroel: $50 → 20%Kupat Hair: $50 → 20%Belz Institution: $50 → 20%Belz Institution in Israel: $50 → 20%American Friends of Kupat Hair: $50 → 20%Ezras Yisroel: $50 → 20%Belz Institution in Israel: $50 → 20%Chesed Lavraham Inc: $50 → 20%Ahavas Chesed: $90 → 20%CONG PINAS YIKRAS: $2k → 20%Bnos Sanz: $8k → 20%Mosdos Sanz Klausenburg: $250 → 20%Mosdos Sanz Klausenburg: $180 → 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.

39%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$29k · 9 repeat orgs$47k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +34% since the first grant, against +10% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
46

Total granted

$29k
$47k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+10%

Still filing today

33%
7%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
ReligionFood & NutritionHealthInternationalOther
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

  • VS
    VARIOUS - SCHEDULE AVAILABALE UPON REQUEST
    2× · 2024–2025 · $20k
  • CV
    CHAIM V CHESED
    2× · 2020–2023 · $7k
  • KC
    KOLEL CHIBAS JERUSALEM
    4× · 2017–2022 · $2k · revenue -42%

Funded once

  • BS
    BNOS SANZ
    one grant, 2021 · $8k
  • MC
    MISCELLANEOUS CHARITY LESS THAN 1500
    one grant, 2023 · $5k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2019 · $5k
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 55 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)
0
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

VARIOUS - SCHEDULE AVAILABALE UPON REQUEST: $19,598 · OtherVARIOUS - SCHEDULE AVAILABALE UPON REQUESTBNOS SANZ: $7,800 · OtherBNOS SANZCHAIM V CHESED: $7,050 · OtherCHAIM V CHESEDMISCELLANEOUS CHARITY LESS THAN 1500: $5,011 · OtherMISCELLANEOUS CHARITY LESS THAN 1500Individual grant recipient: $4,650 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $3,000 · OtherMiscellaneous Charity Less Than 1000: $2,634 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $2,500 · OtherYESHIVAS SANZ KLAUZENBURG: $2,400 · Other+40 more: $14,978 · Other+40 moreYeshiva of Machzikai Hadas Inc: $3,250 · ReligionCHAYIM V CHESED: $1,000 · Religion+1 more: $111 · ReligionKOLEL CHIBAS JERUSALEM: $1,883 · InternationalCHAI LIFELINE INC: $50 · HealthMASBIA: $25 · Food & Nutrition
Other$69,621Religion$4,361International$1,883Health$50Food & Nutrition$25

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetYeshiva of Machzikai Hadas Inc: $3,250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKOLEL CHIBAS JERUSALEM: $1,883 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetCHAYIM V CHESED: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF KUPAT HA'IR: $111 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $50 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMASBIA: $25 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 Yeshiva of Machzikai Hadas Inc ↗
  • Who funds KOLEL CHIBAS JERUSALEM ↗
  • Who funds CHAYIM V CHESED ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF KUPAT HA'IR ↗
  • Who funds CHAI LIFELINE 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 FundFidelity Investments …
The Ojc FundNY18.4× affinity7 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–60%
    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 55 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 Ayin Tov Family’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