Skip to content

· Private foundation

C Funding

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.

$339k
Granted FY2025still arriving
29
Grants FY2025still arriving
9
States reached
$222k
Largest
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 2025.

Religion$1.3MEducation$10kInternational$6kHealth$5kHuman Services$2k
02FY2025 · 29 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k23 grants · $38k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $80k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $222k
$1,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$1.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$221,574
JGIVE-FRIEND OF ASOR JGIVECOM$25,000
YESHIVA MESIVFA TORAH TEMIMAH$20,000
Individual grant recipient$15,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
CONGREGATION CHAB ZEDE OZBYORG$9,124
LECHEM LASOVA$5,000
A TIME$5,000
BRESLOV RESEARCH INSTITUTE NY$4,500
BOCA JEWISH CENTER$4,201
CHESED FUND - NORTH MIA$2,500
CHASDEIAVOS$1,000
CHECHEMLASOV$1,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
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 (FY20–25, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 74% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%A TIME: $5k → 20%THE SPECIAL CHILDREN'S CENTER: $2k → 7%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.

Which US states its grants reach

NY
NJ
CT
CA
NC
OK
MS
TX
FL
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.

21%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$279k · 25 repeat orgs$1.0M to everyone else

25 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 19 since wound down; 23 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

25
140

Total granted

$279k
$724k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+55%
+88%

Still filing today

8%
2%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 6% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $318k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
ReligionHuman ServicesInternationalOther
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

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2024–2025 · $50k
  • AT
    A TIME
    2× · 2023–2024 · $47k
  • BM
    BAS MIKROH
    2× · 2020–2021 · $25k

Funded once

  • TC
    THE CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL
    one grant, 2020 · $130k
  • EM
    EZER MIZION (A TIME)
    2× · 2024–2025 · $50k
  • CF
    CENTRAL FUND OF IRAEL
    one grant, 2021 · $50k
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

6 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. 6 of the 188 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
4/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $221,574 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTHE CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL: $130,001 · OtherTHE CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAELEZER MIZION (A TIME): $50,001 · OtherCENTRAL FUND OF IRAEL: $50,001 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $50,000 · OtherA TIME: $47,000 · Other+176 more: $739,397 · Other+176 moreTORAS CHESED INC: $19,750 · ReligionTZUR FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 · Religion+1 more: $460 · ReligionA Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange: $5,000 · Human ServicesTHE SPECIAL CHILDREN CENTER: $1,800 · Human ServicesTORAH COMMUNITY FUND INC: $5,550 · International
Other$1,287,974Religion$21,210Human Services$6,800International$5,550

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTORAS CHESED INC: $19,750 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetTORAH COMMUNITY FUND INC: $5,550 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetA Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE SPECIAL CHILDREN CENTER: $1,800 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTZUR FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVAAD HARABBANIM L'INYANEI TZEDUKA INC: $460 over 1y, 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 TORAS CHESED 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 FundNY15.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 5%
  • The Special Children Center: 5% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
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 188 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 C Funding’s filings →

More from the funding graph