Skip to content

· Private foundation

Blum Foundation

Its FY2023 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$92k
Granted FY2023
9
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$45k
Largest
01What it funds
0161% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2023.

Religion$481kPhilanthropy$161kArts & Culture$26kHuman Services$18kCrime & Legal$13kHealth$6kInternational$881Education$190Other$0
02FY2023 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k8 grants · $47k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $45k
$6,900
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE OJC FUND$44,950
VARIOUS CONTRIBUTIONS LESS THAN 1500$9,982
Individual grant recipient$9,875
CENTRAL UTA$7,450
Individual grant recipient$6,900
RCCS$4,897
BIKUR CHOILEM OF PUPA$3,500
CONG KEREN MUGEIN IMOISHEYA$2,960
KESHER NAFSHI$1,900
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 (FY17–20, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%Tzidkas Avrohom: $100 → 28%Chaim Medical Resource: $18 → 14%Keren Halbusha: $5k → 20%A Torah Infertility Medium of Exchange: $500 → 20%Keren Halbusha: $400 → 20%A Torah Infertility Medium of Exchange: $208 → 20%A Time: $100 → 20%Avihem 115: $100 → 20%A Time: $100 → 20%A Torah Infertility Medium of Exchange: $50 → 20%Keren yeshua Vreiza: $100 → 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.

59%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$498k · 90 repeat orgs$343k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +139% since the first grant, against +33% for those funded once.

90 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2023, 86 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

90
357

Total granted

$498k
$322k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+139%
+33%

Still filing today

7%
5%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 54% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $22k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
ReligionHuman ServicesPhilanthropyHealthInternationalEducationOther
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

  • BC
    BIKUR CHOLIM INC
    2× · 2017–2019 · $2k · revenue +562%
  • CV
    CHAYIM V CHESED
    3× · 2017–2019 · $2k · revenue +139%
  • AT
    A Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange
    2× · 2018–2020 · $858 · revenue +228%

Funded once

  • VC
    Various Charities Less than 1500
    one grant, 2021 · $45k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $38k
  • C
    Chase
    one grant, 2018 · $20k
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
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
2
Ahavas Torah V'chesed
Philanthropy
3
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
4
Keren Avraham Shmuel Inc Wachman
Philanthropy
5
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
6
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
7
Chevras Shabbos Kodesh Podcast Fellowship
Religion
8
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
9
Nefesh Chaim Inc
Religion
10
Keren Torah Vchesed

Keren torah vchesed inc. is the american fundraising arm of irgun hesh hatorah an established israeli religious organization that maintains religious centers for worship and torah study and alleeviates poverty in israel

International
11
Avodat Avraham Inc
Religion
12
Tzidkas Chaim Vleah Foundation Inc
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Vaad Harabbanim L'inyanei Tzeduka Inc; the most unlike its peers is Keren Torah Vchesed. 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

32 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. 32 of the 452 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)
12
Early backer (in before they grew)
26/32
Grantees still filing
26/32
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BAIS CHUNA: $67,085 · OtherBAIS CHUNABAIS RUCHEL DSATMAR INC: $48,379 · OtherBAIS RUCHEL DSATMAR INCVarious Charities Less than 1500: $44,964 · OtherVarious Charities Less than 1500CHAIM V CHESED: $41,472 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $38,000 · OtherBais Hamedrosh Ohev Yisroel: $32,060 · OtherVarious Contributions Less Than 1500: $28,792 · Other+180 more: $507,034 · Other+180 moreTHE OJC FUND: $115,050 · EducationTHE OJC FUNDKEREN HALBUSHA INC: $5,800 · Human ServicesA Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange: $858 · Human ServicesKESHER NAFSHI INC: $1,900 · HealthBIKUR CHOLIM INC: $1,628 · HealthKAPAYIM INC: $360 · HealthFRIENDS OF BAS AYIN: $1,200 · PhilanthropyYETEV LEV INC: $711 · PhilanthropyZICHRON YOSEF INC: $500 · PhilanthropyCHAYIM V CHESED: $1,532 · ReligionENKAS USIR INC: $280 · ReligionMIKVAH USA INC: $222 · ReligionTZEDAKAH VCHESED INC: $1,900 · International
Other$807,786Education$115,050Human Services$6,658Health$3,888Philanthropy$2,411Religion$2,034International$1,900

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE OJC FUND: $115,050 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetKEREN HALBUSHA INC: $5,800 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetLHACHYOS LEV INC: $3,500 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetKESHER NAFSHI INC: $1,900 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTZEDAKAH VCHESED INC: $1,900 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBIKUR CHOLIM INC: $1,628 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCHAYIM V CHESED: $1,532 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF BAS AYIN: $1,200 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetA Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange: $858 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetKAPAYIM INC: $360 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMIKVAH USA INC: $222 over 2y, 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 THE OJC FUND ↗

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 FundNY86× affinity79 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Bochner Foundation · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · Ani Mamin Foundation · Yr Foundation · A&E Hauer Family Foundation · Nimlach Foundation · Zelig and Rifky Weiss Family Foundation Inc · R' Shaya Ben Moshe Foundation · American Friends of Bnai Levy Foundation · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Madanim Foundation

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Heichal Hatorah: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get 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 · 0–25%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Blum Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Blum Foundation 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.

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 452 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Blum’s filings →

More from the funding graph