Skip to content

· Private foundation

Brucha Vyehoshua Foundation Trust

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.

$137k
Granted FY2025still arriving
14
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$62k
Largest
01What it funds
0191% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Religion$608kPhilanthropy$81kHuman Services$25kEnvironment$23kEducation$9kCrime & Legal$7kPublic Safety & Disaster$6kOther$0
02FY2025 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k11 grants · $52k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $23k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $62k
$6,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONGREGATION YETEV LEV D'SATMAR$62,000
CONGREGATION KAHAL YIREI HASHEM$12,500
CONGREGATION ATZEI CHAIM OF SIGET$10,000
BENOS MELUCHIM$9,000
KEREN MELAMDIM DSATMAR INC$8,000
Individual grant recipient$7,100
Individual grant recipient$6,500
CONGREGATION ZICHRON ELIMELECH$5,000
MISCELLANEOUS ORGANIZED CHARITIES$4,600
CONGREGATION RACHMISTRIVKA INC$3,600
CONGREGATION BAIS PINCHUS SHOLEM$2,500
MOSDOS BETH YOSEF ZVI$2,000
KEREN MENACHEM$2,000
CONGREGATION NACHLAS MOSHE MAKAVA$1,800
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 (FY21–24, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%AHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC: $18k → 20%AHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC: $5k → 20%AHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC: $2k → 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.

65%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$547k · 18 repeat orgs$298k to everyone else

18 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
31

Total granted

$547k
$263k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-15%
+6%

Still filing today

22%
6%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
ReligionPhilanthropyEducationHealthHuman ServicesOther
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

  • CA
    CONGREGATION ATZEI CHAIM SIGET
    9× · 2017–2025 · $89k
  • CY
    CONGREGATION YETEV LEV DSATMAR INC
    5× · 2020–2025 · $81k
  • MO
    MISCELLANEOUS ORGANIZED CHARITIES
    8× · 2018–2025 · $76k

Funded once

  • CM
    CONGREGATION MACHNEH RAV TOV INC
    one grant, 2023 · $36k
  • CT
    CONGREGATION TOLDOS ODOM
    one grant, 2022 · $36k
  • CY
    CONG YESHIVA SHEARITH ISRAEL
    one grant, 2023 · $25k
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
Ohr Yisrael Yeshiva Inc

Ohr Yisrael is a religious institution that provides religious services and instruction to Rabbis and community members.

Religion
3
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
4
Hahaim Yeshivat Shalom Inc
Education
5
Ohel Yakov Foundation
—
6
Bais Yehuda Perach Rochel Foundation
Public Benefit
7
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
—
8
Keren Tifereth Yisroel Foundation Inc
Philanthropy
9
Sherit Isroel
—
10
Yad Yosef Foundation
Philanthropy
11
Yeshivat Leluv of Jerusalem Inc

Charitable work to help people in need

—
12
Keren Yad Le-Yosef Foundation Trust
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ahavat Yisroel Humanity Inc; the most unlike its peers is Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel. 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

8 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. 8 of the 55 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)
7/8
Grantees still filing
3/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONGREGATION ATZEI CHAIM SIGET: $89,280 · OtherCONGREGATION ATZEI CHAIM SIGETCONGREGATION YETEV LEV DSATMAR INC: $81,450 · OtherCONGREGATION YETEV LEV DSATMAR INCMISCELLANEOUS ORGANIZED CHARITIES: $75,915 · OtherMISCELLANEOUS ORGANIZED CHARITIESIndividual grant recipient: $66,300 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCONGREGATION MACHNEH RAV TOV INC: $36,000 · OtherCONGREGATION TOLDOS ODOM: $36,000 · OtherCONGREGATION KAHAL YIREI HASHEM INC: $34,130 · OtherCONG YESHIVA SHEARITH ISRAEL: $25,000 · Other+39 more: $294,770 · Other+39 moreMOSDOS BETH YOSEF ZVI: $49,300 · ReligionKEREN MELAMDIM DSATMAR INC: $8,000 · Religion+1 more: $1,800 · ReligionAHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC: $24,500 · Human ServicesYESHIVA TALPIOT INC: $9,000 · EducationKEREN KIRYAT SEFER INC: $5,000 · PhilanthropyYESHIVA OHR YISROEL: $1,800 · PhilanthropyBOROUGH PARK VOLUNTEER OF HATZOLAH: $6,100 · Health
Other$738,845Religion$59,100Human Services$24,500Education$9,000Philanthropy$6,800Health$6,100

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMOSDOS BETH YOSEF ZVI: $49,300 over 9y, 0.4% of budgetAHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC: $24,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetYESHIVA TALPIOT INC: $9,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetBOROUGH PARK VOLUNTEER OF HATZOLAH: $6,100 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetKEREN KIRYAT SEFER INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetOHEV SHALOM COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $1,800 over 1y, 0.9% 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 MOSDOS BETH YOSEF ZVI ↗
  • Who funds AHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA TALPIOT INC ↗
  • Who funds KEREN MELAMDIM DSATMAR INC ↗
  • Who funds MA'AYNEI HAYESHUA TRUST ↗
  • Who funds BOROUGH PARK VOLUNTEER OF HATZOLAH ↗
  • Who funds KEREN KIRYAT SEFER 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 FundNY50× affinity30 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Meh Family Foundation Inc · Strulovich Family Foundation Trust · American Friends of Bnai Levy Foundation · Hershel and Miriam Herbst Charitable Trust · Hemitt Foundation Inc · Zelig and Rifky Weiss Family Foundation Inc · Donors Fund Inc · Asm Family Charitable Foundation Trust · J & R Foundation · Bzl 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 Brucha Vyehoshua Foundation Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Brucha Vyehoshua Foundation Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%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
    1get 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 55 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 Brucha Vyehoshua’s filings →

    More from the funding graph