· Private foundation
Binyan Avrohom Inc
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k42 grants · $58k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $42k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PEF ISRAEL ENDOWMENT FUND | $18,800 |
| AMER FRIENDS OF RABIN HOSPITAL | $13,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| KINDNESS FUND-SHUVA CENTER | $9,180 |
| FRIENDS OF ASOR FUND | $7,300 |
| Individual grant recipient | $6,000 |
| GIVELIVELY | $4,700 |
| NEFESH YEHUDI INC | $4,000 |
| KEREN KIRYAT SEFER | $4,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,100 |
| KEREN ICHUD KEHILOT HADAR GANIM | $2,000 |
| ISRAEL SELECT CHARITY FUNDS | $1,800 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,800 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,800 |
| MEKOR CHAIM | $1,180 |
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 US giving — 68% of grant dollars ($395k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 32% that went abroad ($186k) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $12k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 47% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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.
Which US states your grants reach
Beyond the US — 32% of all-years giving ($186k)
1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 19% of Binyan Avrohom Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +50% since the first grant, against +36% for the ones you funded once.
80 repeat relationships — 27 still active in FY2025, 53 since wound down; 17 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, 48% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $42k 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
- CDCHASDEI DAVID INC2× · 2020–2021 · $30k · revenue +50%
- AGAMERICA GIVES INC5× · 2020–2024 · $8k · revenue +216%
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF KESHER YEHUDI7× · 2017–2023 · $6k · revenue +593%
Funded once
- ATAMUTAT TZEIRI HADAR GANIMone grant, 2024 · $10k
- CDCHASE DAVID co J EIDELMANone grant, 2019 · $10k
- MWMAIMON WORLD CENTERone grant, 2019 · $7k
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.
To promote, benefit, and support Jewish religious, charitable & educational activities in Israel and the USA.
To support religious, charitable, scientific, literary and/or educational programs
To further jewish education in israel
To voluntarily assist the house of religious learning known as yeshiva neveh zion in israel
To promote, assist, and sponsor the spreading of Jewish religious education in Israel. The organization will also organize inspirational gatherings in the USA to enhance the participants' Torah knowledge.
To support and promote the study of torah (bible) among members of jewish faith worldwide.
Support of religious schools in Israel
To pursue a greater outreach of knowledge of the Jewish Torah and to further educate the less knowledgeable
Furtherance of jewish education
religious and educational program for post high school youth
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of Leket Israel Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Ne'eman Foundation. 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 25 years old; the field is 15. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 21% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% 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.
41 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. 41 of the 172 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
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.
- Who funds PEF ISRAEL ENDOWMENT FUNDS INC ↗
- Who funds CHASDEI DAVID INC ↗
- Who funds NEFESH YEHUDIE INC ↗
- Who funds KEREN KIRYAT SEFER INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICA GIVES INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF KESHER YEHUDI ↗
- Who funds Israel Magen Fund Inc ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF UNITED HATZALAH INC ↗
- Who funds SHUVU RETURN INC ↗
- Who funds Ohr Torah Stone Institutions of Israel ↗
- Who funds NE EMAN FOUNDATION USA ↗
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: Jewish Communal Fund · The Ojc Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Cherna Moskowitz Foundation · Gertrude and Morris Bienenfeld Charitable Foundation · The Nathan and Marilyn Silberman Fdn · The Irving I Moskowitz Foundation · The Zev and Susan Munk Family Foundation · Cross River Community Foundation · Fjc · The David and Cheryl Unterberg Charitable Foundation Trust · Mzl 40 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 Binyan Avrohom Inc 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Binyan Avrohom Inc?
Find your warmest path to Binyan Avrohom Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.