Skip to content
B Familee Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

B Familee Charitable 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.

$230k
Granted FY2025still arriving
39
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$34k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0184% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Religion$296kHuman Services$89kPhilanthropy$57kHealth$26kArts & Culture$26kFood & Nutrition$17kEducation$14kCommunity Improvement$4kOther$0
02FY2025 · 39 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k30 grants · $69k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $161k
$2,500
Median grant
7
States reached
$5.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Boca Jewish Center$34,160
Lubavitch of Iowa City$22,000
Jewish Federation of S Palm Beach C$21,000
Chabad Lubavitch of Quad Cities$18,000
Chabad of Downtown Coral Gables$18,000
Our Place$15,600
Chabad of North East Iowa$11,800
Holland Foundation For Sight Restor$10,000
Jewish Federation of Greater Washin$10,000
Individual grant recipient$7,600
Chabad Chai Center$7,380
Chabad of Potomac$5,900
International Rett Syndrome Foundat$5,550
Chabad Student Center$5,100
Tomchea Meushar$4,000
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 (FY21–25, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 47% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%BIKUR CHOLIM OF CLEVELAND: $1k → 17%DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND: $1k → 6%ISRAEL HEART2HEART: $2k → 13%DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND: $500 → 6%ISRAEL HEART2HEART: $500 → 13%Yad Chaya Inc: $360 → 6%TOGETHER WE ACHIEVE: $2k → 9%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WI
NY
IA
OH
NJ
CA
CO
KY
MD
NC
TX
FL
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.

69%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$431k · 27 repeat orgs$194k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +17% since the first grant, against +13% for those funded once.

27 repeat relationships: 13 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down; 26 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

27
34

Total granted

$431k
$64k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+17%
+13%

Still filing today

33%
24%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 43% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $130k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesReligionEducationInternationalPhilanthropyOther
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

  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF BEIS MAOZ
    5× · 2021–2025 · $15k · revenue +17%
  • CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA
    5× · 2021–2025 · $13k · revenue +55%
  • AH
    American Heart Association Inc
    4× · 2021–2024 · $3k · revenue +33%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $10k
  • JF
    JEWISH FEDERATION PALM BEACH
    one grant, 2024 · $10k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $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

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
Sherit Isroel
—
3
Shaarei Halacha Inc
Philanthropy
4
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
6
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
—
7
Tal Hashamayim Foundation
Religion
8
Hahaim Yeshivat Shalom Inc
Education
9
American Friends Tomchai Shabat Foundation
—
10
Chevras Shabbos Kodesh Podcast Fellowship
Religion
11
Israel Initiative 2020 Inc
International
12
Yad Laniyim
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of Yeshiva Dmir Inc; the most unlike its peers is Monarch Research Project. 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

28 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. 28 of the 88 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)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
28/28
Grantees still filing
18/28
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LUBAVITCH OF IOWA CITY: $104,616 · OtherLUBAVITCH OF IOWA CITYBOCA JEWISH CENTER: $45,732 · OtherBOCA JEWISH CENTERIndividual grant recipient: $33,010 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $26,900 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCHABAD OF N E IOWA: $24,425 · OtherCOLEL CHABAD: $22,830 · OtherJewish Federation of S Palm Beach C: $21,000 · OtherCHABAD OF DOWNTOWN CORAL GABLES INC: $18,000 · OtherChabad Lubavitch of Quad Cities: $18,000 · Other+59 more: $184,605 · Other+59 moreFRIENDS OF AHAVATH SHALOM INC: $35,347 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN FRIENDS OF BEIS MAOZ: $14,864 · ReligionTorahAnytimeCom Inc: $6,633 · ReligionYAM SHLOMO INC: $6,400 · ReligionHOLLAND FOUNDATION FOR SIGHT RESTORATION: $10,000 · HealthInternational Rett Syndrome Foundation: $5,550 · HealthBREAKTHROUGH T1D: $3,600 · HealthAmerican Heart Association Inc: $2,500 · HealthTANAGER PLACE: $1,000 · Health+2 more: $360 · HealthOUR PLACE INC: $17,400 · Youth DevelopmentCULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA: $12,500 · EducationMESIVTA OF CORAL SPRINGS INC: $1,800 · EducationYESHIVA ELEMENTARY INC: $1,080 · EducationISRAEL HEART2HEART INC: $2,300 · Human ServicesTOGETHER WE ACHIEVE: $2,000 · Human ServicesDAVIS MEMORIAL FUND INC: $1,500 · Human ServicesBIKUR CHOLIM OF CLEVELAND: $1,080 · Human ServicesYAD CHAYA INC: $360 · Human Services
Other$499,118Philanthropy$35,347Religion$27,897Health$23,010Youth Development$17,400Education$15,380Human Services$7,240

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 budgetFRIENDS OF AHAVATH SHALOM INC: $35,347 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetOUR PLACE INC: $17,400 over 2y, 7.4% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF BEIS MAOZ: $14,864 over 5y, 2.7% of budgetCULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA: $12,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetTorahAnytimeCom Inc: $6,633 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetYAM SHLOMO INC: $6,400 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetBREAKTHROUGH T1D: $3,600 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc: $2,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTOGETHER WE ACHIEVE: $2,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetIsrael 20 Inc: $2,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetDAVIS MEMORIAL FUND INC: $1,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBIKUR CHOLIM OF CLEVELAND: $1,080 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMONARCH RESEARCH PROJECT: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGOLD COAST DOWN SYNDROME ORG INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTANAGER PLACE: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHILLEL OF BROWARD AND PALM BEACH INC: $360 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH NATIONAL FUND (KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL) INC: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHatzalah Cleveland: $180 over 1y, 0.1% 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 FRIENDS OF AHAVATH SHALOM INC ↗
  • Who funds OUR PLACE INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF BEIS MAOZ ↗
  • Who funds CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA ↗
  • Who funds HOLLAND FOUNDATION FOR SIGHT RESTORATION ↗
  • Who funds TorahAnytimeCom Inc ↗
  • Who funds YAM SHLOMO INC ↗
  • Who funds International Rett Syndrome Foundation ↗
  • Who funds BREAKTHROUGH T1D ↗
  • Who funds American Heart Association 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 FundJewish Communal FundGreater Miami Jewish …Associated Jewish Cha…Jewish Federation of …The Ezra Charitable T…Jewish Community Foun…Gs Donor Advised Phil…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…The Blackbaud Giving …Donor Advised Charita…
The Ojc FundNY19× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · Greater Miami Jewish Federation Inc · Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · The Ezra Charitable Trust · Jewish Community Foundation of Greater Metrowest NJ · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 B Familee Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from B Familee Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 50%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    5get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 88 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 B Familee’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