Skip to content

· Public charity

Bnei Zipora Inc

Provide fund to other not-for-profit organization for real propertyimprovement and help them to achieve their goals.

$406k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$120k
Largest
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Religion$752kPhilanthropy$30kHealth$27kCommunity Improvement$13kEducation$10kOther$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $201,839, the rows itemized in this filing. The $406,031 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $204,192 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $74k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $120k
$47,089
Median grant
1
States reached
$36k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Bukharian Sephardic Jewish Ce$120,000
BETH ELIYAHU$47,089
BEACHWAY THERAPY CENTER$27,000
Individual grant recipient$7,750
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 (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%PAYPAL CHARITABLE GIVING FUND: $30k → 8%BETH GAVRIEL BUKHARIAN CONGREGATION: $124k → 13%ROFEH CHOLIM CENTER: $25k → 20%BEACHWAY THERAPY CENTER: $27k → 11%OR PINHAS INC: $5k → 13%Bukharian Sephardic Jewish Ce: $120k → 15%BUKHARIAN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER: $41k → 13%BAIS MENACHEM: $10k → 20%CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK: $13k → 11%770 MOSHIACH COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $7k → 13%BUKHARIAN SPHARDIC JEWISH CENTER: $110k → 15%BETH GAVRIEL BUKHARIAN CONGREGATION: $8k → 13%YESHIVAT OHEL TORAH: $14k → 20%BUKHARIAN SEPHARDIC JEWISH CENTER: $62k → 15%BETH GAVRIEL BUKHARIAN CONGREGATION: $8k → 13%BETH ELIYAHU: $47k → 15%BOKHARIAN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER: $7k → 13%MIAMI BEACH COMMUNITY KOLLEL: $11k → 15%BUKHARIAN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER: $5k → 13%KIPPAH DEPOT: $8k → 15%HOUSE OF TORAH JE INC: $13k → 13%SHALOM MONTESSORI SCHOOL: $10k → 15%SEPHARDIC CENTER OF HOLLIS HILLS: $6k → 13%CHABAD LUBAVITCH RUSSIAN CENTER: $49k → 15%CHABAD OF MIAMI GARDENS INC: $38k → 15%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $185k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

North America (Canada and Mexico)$185k · 100% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: GENERAL PURPOSE

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

66%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$532k · 3 repeat orgs$278k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue -6% since the first grant, against -11% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
13

Total granted

$532k
$243k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-6%
-11%

Still filing today

33%
15%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’22’23’24’25
ReligionCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • BS
    BUKHARIAN SEPHARDIC JEWISH CENTER OF MIAMI INC
    3× · 2020–2025 · $339k
  • BG
    BETH GAVRIEL BUKHARIAN CONGREGATION
    3× · 2019–2023 · $140k
  • BJ
    BOKHARIAN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $53k · revenue -6%

Funded once

  • CL
    CHABAD LUBAVITCH OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH INC
    one grant, 2024 · $49k
  • TM
    Torat Moshe Inc
    one grant, 2022 · $41k
  • CO
    CHABAD OF MIAMI GARDENS INC
    one grant, 2023 · $38k
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

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 19 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)
4/4
Grantees still filing
1/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BUKHARIAN SEPHARDIC JEWISH CENTER OF MIAMI INC: $338,953 · OtherBUKHARIAN SEPHARDIC JEWISH CENTER OF MIAMI INCBETH GAVRIEL BUKHARIAN CONGREGATION: $139,906 · OtherBETH GAVRIEL BUKHARIAN CONGREGATIONBOKHARIAN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $53,237 · OtherBOKHARIAN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER INCCHABAD LUBAVITCH OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH INC: $48,987 · OtherCHABAD LUBAVITCH OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH INCTorat Moshe Inc: $41,333 · OtherCHABAD OF MIAMI GARDENS INC: $38,385 · OtherBEACHWAY THERAPY CENTER LLC: $27,000 · Other+9 more: $101,166 · Other+9 morePAYPAL CHARITABLE GIVING FUND: $30,000 · PhilanthropyYESHIVAT OHEL TORAH: $13,694 · Religion770 MOSHIACH COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $7,100 · Community Improvement
Other$788,967Philanthropy$30,000Religion$13,694Community Improvement$7,100

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBOKHARIAN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $53,237 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetPAYPAL CHARITABLE GIVING FUND: $30,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYESHIVAT OHEL TORAH: $13,694 over 1y, 0.2% of budget770 MOSHIACH COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $7,100 over 1y, 0.2% 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 BOKHARIAN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds PAYPAL CHARITABLE GIVING FUND ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVAT OHEL TORAH ↗
  • Who funds 770 MOSHIACH COMMUNITY CENTER 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.

Jewish Communal FundNY15.9× affinity7 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · The Ojc Fund · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Bnei Zipora Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Bnei Zipora Inc. 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • 770 Moshiach Community Center Inc: 3% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get 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 · 0–5%
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 19 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 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 Bnei Zipora’s filings →

More from the funding graph