Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Chayim V Chesed

The function of the organization is to collect money for the indigent.

$30M
Granted FY2025still arriving
157
Grants FY2025still arriving
States reached
$738k
Largest
01What you fund
0188% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172025.

Religion$26MPhilanthropy$2.9MHuman Services$626kInternational$401kArts & Culture$146kPublic Benefit$141kHealth$133kFood & Nutrition$108kOther$0
02FY2025 · 157 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 157 grants below total $8,646,314 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $29,510,759 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $20,864,445 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k28 grants · $204k
  • $10k–50k85 grants · $1.8M
  • $50k–250k36 grants · $3.7M
  • $250k+8 grants · $2.9M
$21,212
Median grant
States reached
$2.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONG AHAVAS TZEDAKAH VCHESED INC$737,860
KEREN ZICHRON SHMIEL ZANVIL$355,536
Individual grant recipient$348,905
Individual grant recipient$308,000
EZER YESHIVA 8456946777 NY$300,036
Individual grant recipient$298,083
Individual grant recipient$261,000
Individual grant recipient$250,000
KEREN MUGEIN IMOISHEYA$211,438
ADAS LEMBERG$205,823
KHAL TORATH CHAIM$200,000
REKONECT$198,707
CONG MOSAD KEREN HATZOLE$193,600
MOSDOS RAMOU$185,000
MACHZIKEI TORAH INC$172,452
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY20–23, $110k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER INC: $86k → 11%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER INC: $12k → 11%IMCHA INC: $12k → 20%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

Grants abroad, by region — $20M 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.

Middle East and North Africa$20M · 100% · 8 grants

Stated purpose: GENERAL SUPPORT

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. 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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

56%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$20M · 139 repeat orgs$15M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +54% since the first grant, against +12% for the ones you funded once.

139 repeat relationships — 33 still active in FY2025, 106 since wound down; 124 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

139
295

Total granted

$20M
$8.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+54%
+12%

Still filing today

7%
8%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 21% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6.9M 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
PhilanthropyReligionHealthPublic BenefitEducationHuman ServicesOther

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

  • BE
    BAIS EPHRAIM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION TRUST
    4× · 2020–2023 · $702k · revenue +194%
  • VH
    VAAD HARABBANIM L'INYANEI TZEDUKA INC
    3× · 2018–2021 · $57k · revenue +84%
  • BS
    BAIS SHAINDEL
    2× · 2018–2020 · $23k · revenue +175%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $429k
  • TT
    TALMUD TORAH DNITRA
    one grant, 2024 · $421k
  • CT
    CONGREGATION TOLDOS NAFTULI
    one grant, 2024 · $404k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
2
Bais Yisrael Foundation
3
Yad Yosef Foundation
Philanthropy
4
Tzemach Yifroch Foundation
5
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

6
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
7
Mashiach Foundation
Arts & Culture
8
Tal Hashamayim Foundation
Religion
9
Zichron Chaim Avraham Foundation
Philanthropy
10
Zichroin Rabbeini Meshilem Feiish Ztl Foundation
11
The Yad Moach Vlev Foundation
Philanthropy
12
Chasdei Hashem Foundation Trust
Philanthropy

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Vaad Harabbanim L'inyanei Tzeduka Inc and the most unlike its peers is Mayer Handler 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 27 years old; the field is 13. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number23%0%<5yr16%13%5–10yr21%16%10–20yr22%41%20–35yr13%26%35–55yr6%4%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value23%0%<5yr16%12%5–10yr21%11%10–20yr22%44%20–35yr13%28%35–55yr6%4%55yr+

The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close 1% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
1%3/251
the rest of the field
11%
2,117/19,268

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.

04the grantee network

37 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 37 of the 559 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
12
Early backer (in before they grew)
35/37
Grantees still filing
25/37
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

VARIOUS CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS — $2,344,434 · OtherVARIOUS CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONSCONGREGATION AHAVAS TZDOKAH VCHESED INC — $2,299,081 · OtherCONGREGATION AHAVAS TZDOKAH VCHESED INCMOSDOS RAMOU — $1,402,935 · OtherTOVA UVRUCHA INC — $1,201,262 · Other+185 more — $21,065,589 · Other+185 moreBAIS EPHRAIM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION TRUST — $701,750 · PhilanthropyK W CHARITABLE FOUNDATION — $170,000 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN FRIENDS OF CHASDEI YOSEF — $85,450 · PhilanthropyNECHAMAS ZION MARYLAND — $60,000 · Philanthropy+2 more — $69,000 · PhilanthropyVYAZREIM INC — $134,792 · Public BenefitAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER — $98,200 · Human ServicesVAAD HARABBANIM L'INYANEI TZEDUKA INC — $56,665 · ReligionInternational Bris Association — $35,000 · ReligionANENI WE ANSWER INC — $32,000 · Health
Other$28,313,301Philanthropy$1,086,200Public Benefit$134,792Human Services$98,200Religion$91,665Health$32,000

Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetBAIS EPHRAIM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION TRUST — $701,750 over 4y, 4.2% of budgetK W CHARITABLE FOUNDATION — $170,000 over 4y, 43% of budgetVYAZREIM INC — $134,792 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER — $98,200 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF CHASDEI YOSEF — $85,450 over 1y, 6.8% of budgetNECHAMAS ZION MARYLAND — $60,000 over 1y, 9.2% of budgetVAAD HARABBANIM L'INYANEI TZEDUKA INC — $56,665 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetKIPAS TZEDUKAH INC — $35,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetInternational Bris Association — $35,000 over 1y, 26% of budgetBAIS RABAINE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION — $34,000 over 1y, 36% of budgetANENI WE ANSWER INC — $32,000 over 1y, 4.9% of budget
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 BAIS EPHRAIM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION TRUST

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.

The Ojc FundNY120.2× affinity207 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · American Friends of Bnai Levy Foundation · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Zelig and Rifky Weiss Family Foundation Inc · Vyazreim Inc · Hf Foundation · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · Strulovich Family Foundation Trust · Donors Fund Inc · Keren Ish Foundation · Zichron Yechiel Mechel Foundation · J & R 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 Chayim V Chesed 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 50%3%13%28%50%your share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    5get 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, FY2025

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 559 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph