Skip to content
Chesed Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Chesed Foundation

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.

$545k
Granted FY2025still arriving
20
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$150k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0178% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Religion$1.2MInternational$1.2MHuman Services$352kPhilanthropy$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 20 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k7 grants · $41k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $188k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $316k
$15,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$5.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONG MOSDOS SATMAR LINDEN$149,750
Individual grant recipient$91,300
DONATIONS TO OTHER IRS APPROVED CHA$74,823
CENTRAL UTA$43,000
Individual grant recipient$35,400
Individual grant recipient$16,780
Individual grant recipient$16,500
Individual grant recipient$16,200
Individual grant recipient$15,600
CONG HEICHEL DUVID$15,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
Individual grant recipient$8,836
Individual grant recipient$6,784
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 (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 71% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%UTA MONSEY: $22k → 14%CONGREGATION AVNEI ZEDEK: $364k → 14%OTHER IRS APPROVED CHARITIES: $111k → 20%CONG MOSDOS SATMAR LINDEN: $150k → 8%UTA MONSEY: $19k → 14%CONG AHAVAS CHESSED: $151k → 14%DONATIONS TO OTHER IRS APPROVED CHA: $79k → 20%CONG MOSDOS SATMAR LINDEN: $18k → 8%CONG MOSDOS SATMAR LINDEN: $310k → 10%UTA MONSEY: $16k → 14%UTA KJ: $17k → 14%DONATIONS TO OTHER IRS APPROVED CHA: $75k → 20%MIKVAH OF LINDEN: $300k → 10%CENTRAL UTA MONSEY: $15k → 14%UTA KJ: $16k → 14%MISCELANEOUS DONATIONS TO IRS APPRO: $72k → 20%CONG SATMAR LINDEN: $40k → 10%CENTRAL UTA MONSEY: $13k → 14%UTA KJ: $15k → 14%MOSDOS HATORAH LINDEN: $30k → 10%CENTRAL UTA MONSEY: $13k → 14%MOSDOS HATORAH LINDEN: $16k → 10%KOLLEL SHAREI TZION: $105k → 20%KOLLEL SHAAREI TZION: $91k → 20%KOLLEL SHAREI TZION: $74k → 20%KOLLEL SHAAREI TZION: $54k → 20%CENTRAL UTA: $44k → 20%CENTRAL UTA: $44k → 20%CENTRAL UTA: $43k → 20%CENTRAL UTA: $37k → 20%CENTRAL UTA: $31k → 20%CENTRAL UTA: $27k → 20%CONG BETH AHRON: $17k → 20%CONG BETH AHARON: $15k → 20%CONGREGATION BETH AHARON: $14k → 20%CONG BETH AHRON: $14k → 20%CONGREGATION BETH AHARON: $13k → 20%CONGREGATION BETH AHARON: $13k → 20%UTA BP: $33k → 20%UTA BP: $31k → 20%UTA BORO PARK: $29k → 20%UTA BORO PARK: $27k → 20%UTA BORO PARK: $17k → 20%UTA BP: $16k → 20%KOLLEL SHAREI TZION: $101k → 20%KEREN MAGEN UMOSHIA: $35k → 20%KEREN MOGEN UMOSHIA: $25k → 20%CONG HEICHEL DUVID: $15k → 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.
$1.8M · 18 repeat orgs$1.3M to everyone else

18 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
28

Total granted

$1.8M
$1.2M

Still filing today

0%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $59k went to new ones.

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

  • CM
    CONG MOSDOS SATMAR LINDEN
    3× · 2023–2025 · $477k
  • KS
    KOLLEL SHAREI TZION LMETZYONIM
    3× · 2020–2022 · $281k
  • BR
    BAIS RUCHEL DSATMAR INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $226k

Funded once

  • CA
    CONGREGATION AVNEI ZEDEK
    one grant, 2020 · $364k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $300k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $151k
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

2 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. 2 of the 54 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)
1/2
Grantees still filing
2/2
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONG MOSDOS SATMAR LINDEN: $477,350 · OtherCONG MOSDOS SATMAR LINDENCONGREGATION AVNEI ZEDEK: $364,000 · OtherCONGREGATION AVNEI ZEDEKIndividual grant recipient: $300,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientKOLLEL SHAREI TZION LMETZYONIM: $280,645 · OtherKOLLEL SHAREI TZION LMETZYONIMBAIS RUCHEL DSATMAR INC: $226,000 · OtherBAIS RUCHEL DSATMAR INCDONATIONS TO OTHER IRS APPROVED CHA: $153,711 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $151,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $145,300 · OtherOTHER IRS APPROVED CHARITIES: $110,653 · Other+43 more: $920,675 · Other+43 moreKIPAS TZEDUKAH INC: $5,000 · PhilanthropyDONORS FUND INC: $5,000 · Philanthropy
Other$3,129,334Philanthropy$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their 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.

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 FundLHH Capital FoundationBlum FoundationAmerican Friends of B…Paypal Charitable Giv…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Ojc FundNY25.4× affinity11 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · LHH Capital Foundation · Blum Foundation · American Friends of Bnai Levy Foundation · Paypal Charitable Giving 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 Chesed Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Chesed Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
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, FY20–24
    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 54 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 Chesed’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home