Skip to content
Besad Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Besad Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$672k
Granted FY2024still arriving
22
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$230k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Religion$592kInternational$155kHuman Services$107kPhilanthropy$57kEducation$12k
02FY2024 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k9 grants · $34k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $233k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $405k
$20,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$180k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONG GEMACH BNEI PINCHOS$230,000
CONGREGATION ZICHRON MENACHEM INC$75,000
KEREN YAD V'EIZER INC$50,000
CONGREGATION & GMACH ZICHRON SHLOMO$50,000
CONGREGATION KEREN EZRAH INC$41,500
UNITED BOBOV INTERNATIONAL$35,000
CONGREGATION NEIR BARUCH LINZ$32,413
CONGREGATION KHAL SHAAREI ZION BOBOV INC$24,000
KOLEL SHARY LIMUD$24,000
CHASDEI AVOS$22,000
KOLLEL METZYIONIM LHOROAH OF WILLIAMSBURG$20,000
YESHIVA LAVREICHIM METZUYANIM INC$20,000
CAMP ZICHRON ZVI DOVID CONGREGATION$13,700
KUPAT HAKODESH INC$7,000
MACHNE GILA$6,200
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 (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%KEREN YAD V'EIZER INC: $50k → 14%CHASDEI AVOS: $22k → 14%CHONEN V'NOSEN: $500 → 20%CONGREGATION SHAREI CHESED: $8k → 7%CONGREGATION KEREN EZRAH INC: $42k → 14%CONGREGATION KOL ARYEH: $4k → 14%KOLEL SHARY LIMUD: $24k → 20%KOLEL BELZ: $3k → 14%SHERESH TZEDAKA: $1k → 14%KOLLEL METZYIONIM LHOROAH OF WILLIAMSBURG: $20k → 20%OHR LAYSHURIM: $5k → 20%CHAIM V'CHESED: $1k → 20%UNITED BOBOV INTERNATIONAL: $120k → 20%CONGREGATION ZICHRON MENACHEM INC: $75k → 20%FRIENDS OF BOBOV: $50k → 20%AMUDEI ZION: $38k → 20%UNITED BOBOV INTERNATIONAL: $35k → 20%CONGREGATION NEIR BARUCH LINZ: $32k → 20%CONGREGATION KHAL SHAAREI ZION BOBOV INC: $24k → 20%CAMP ZICHRON ZVI DOVID CONGREGATION: $14k → 20%KUPAT HAKODESH INC: $7k → 20%MACHNE GILA: $6k → 20%KUPAL HAKODESH: $5k → 20%KHAL BEIS YOSEF: $4k → 20%CONG RACHMISTRIVKA: $3k → 20%MESIVTAH EITZ CHAIM OF BOBOV: $2k → 20%CONGREGATION AHAVAS TZDOKAH VCHESED INC: $2k → 20%VARIOUS CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS: $2k → 20%CONGREGATION & GMACH ZICHRON SHLOMO: $50k → 20%YESHIVA AMOD HATORAH INC: $1k → 20%YESHIVA LAVREICHIM METZUYANIM INC: $20k → 20%CONGREGATION MISHKON YECHESKEL: $1k → 20%CONGREGATION KEREN OHR CHAIM D BOBOV: $6k → 20%AHAVAS CHESED: $5k → 20%CONG GEMACH BNEI PINCHOS: $230k → 20%CONGREGATION CHASIDEI BELZ: $8k → 20%CONGREGATION MEOROS: $5k → 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 field
04the grantee network

4 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. 4 of the 35 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)
3/4
Grantees still filing
4/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONG GEMACH BNEI PINCHOS: $230,000 · OtherCONG GEMACH BNEI PINCHOSUNITED BOBOV INTERNATIONAL INC: $155,000 · OtherUNITED BOBOV INTERNATIONAL INCCONGREGATION ZICHRON MENACHEM INC: $75,000 · OtherCONGREGATION ZICHRON MENACHEM INCCONGREGATION & GMACH ZICHRON SHLOMO: $50,000 · OtherCONGREGATION & GMACH ZICHRON SHLOMOKEREN YAD V'EIZER INC: $50,000 · OtherKEREN YAD V'EIZER INCIndividual grant recipient: $50,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCONGREGATION KEREN ECRAH INC: $41,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $37,500 · OtherCONGREGATION NEIR BARUCH LINZ: $32,413 · Other+23 more: $147,816 · Other+23 moreCHASDEI AVOS: $22,000 · InternationalYESHIVA LAVREICHIM METZUYANIM INC: $20,000 · ReligionKUPAT HAKODESH INC: $11,600 · Education
Other$869,229International$22,000Religion$20,000Education$11,600

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCHASDEI AVOS: $22,000 over 1y, 6.5% of budgetYESHIVA LAVREICHIM METZUYANIM INC: $20,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetKUPAT HAKODESH INC: $11,600 over 2y, 0.4% 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 KEREN YAD V'EIZER INC ↗
  • Who funds CHASDEI AVOS ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA LAVREICHIM METZUYANIM INC ↗
  • Who funds KUPAT HAKODESH 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 FundS&W Foundation IncB&M Steinmetz Foundat…Jack Adjmi Family Fou…Fund for Life Foundat…Chavie Stern Family F…The Lexicon Foundatio…American Friends of B…Frankel Brothers Foun…Birkas Rosh Foundatio…Vyazreim IncChayim V Chesed
The Ojc FundNY36.6× affinity19 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · S&W Foundation Inc · B&M Steinmetz Foundation · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Fund for Life Foundation Inc · Chavie Stern Family Foundation Inc · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · American Friends of Bnai Levy Foundation · Frankel Brothers Foundation · Birkas Rosh Foundation Inc · Vyazreim Inc · Chayim V Chesed

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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
    0get 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 35 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Besad’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