Skip to content

· Private foundation

D&I Appel Fam Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$70k
Granted FY2024still arriving
33
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$14k
Largest
01What it funds
0159% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Religion$255kEducation$39kHealth$9kHuman Services$1kCivil Rights$1kInternational$420Philanthropy$144Food & Nutrition$120Other$0
02FY2024 · 33 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k31 grants · $45k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $25k
$520
Median grant
3
States reached
$6k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$14,000
YESHIVA NOVOMINSK$11,000
ROSENBAUM YESHIVA OF NORTH JERSEY$7,000
BNOS DEVORAH$6,200
YESHIVA ORCHOS CHAIM$6,000
CHESED 247$4,360
BAIS YISROEL YEHOSUA$3,653
Individual grant recipient$3,600
CONG EMUNAS YISROEL$3,500
BAIS SHAINDEL$1,700
ZICHRON SHLOME REFUAH FUND$1,500
Individual grant recipient$980
YOUNG ISRAEL DEERFIELD BEACH$870
Individual grant recipient$700
Individual grant recipient$700
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 (FY17–19, $316) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%MISASKIM: $144 → 20%MISASKIM: $100 → 20%MISASKIM: $72 → 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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$400k · 62 repeat orgs$67k to everyone else

62 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2024, 47 since wound down; 18 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

62
58

Total granted

$400k
$47k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+58%
+66%

Still filing today

11%
10%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $21k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’21’22’23’24
EducationHealthFood & NutritionReligionHuman 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

  • ON
    OHR NAAVA
    2× · 2018–2019 · $35k · revenue +79%
  • YO
    YESHIVA ORCHOS CHAIM INC
    4× · 2017–2024 · $7k · revenue +17%
  • BS
    BAIS SHAINDEL
    3× · 2022–2024 · $4k · revenue +202%

Funded once

  • BD
    BETH DIN OF AMERICA
    one grant, 2022 · $9k
  • BL
    BNOS LEAH PROSPECT PARK
    one grant, 2019 · $5k
  • CS
    CONGREGATION SONS OF ISRAEL
    one grant, 2018 · $4k
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
Yeshivat Or Hachaim of Lakewood Inc

Parochial elementary school with a focus on sephardic tradition.

Education
2
Yeshiva Toras Chaim Inc

The organization operates a religious/parochial high school and college in lakewood, nj.

Unclassified
3
Shaarei Halacha Inc
Philanthropy
4
Sherit Isroel
—
5
Yeshiva Shaar Hatalmud

Providing jewish education to high school age students.

Education
6
Cheder Shiras Hatorah Inc

Providing jewish and secular education for elementary school aged children.

Education
7
Beis Hachinuch Inc

To provide hebrew religious and secular education for elementary children in a warm and nurturing environment

Education
8
Yeshiva Toras Chaim of Greater Miami Inc

To operate a religious school for high school and post high school students.

Education
9
Chabad of Se Morris County Inc

To stimulate, create and promote a comprehensive, meaningful and fulfilling appreciation, awareness and identification with judaic cultural, historic, and civilizational values. chabad of se morris county provides a safe haven where people…

Arts & Culture
10
Sha Arim Inc

To provide jewish education to children with learning disabilities and special needs in the minneapolis area

Education
11
Bais Medrash Mayan Hatorah

To provide religious education and services to our students in the tradition of the orthodox jewish faith

—
12
Congregation Beth-El Sephardic Center of Jamaica Estates

Congregation beth-el sephardic center of jamaica estates is a religious institution

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chai Lifeline Inc; the most unlike its peers is Arachim Inc. 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

18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 18 of the 140 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/18
Grantees still filing
15/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

YESHIVAS NOVOMINSK: $76,650 · OtherYESHIVAS NOVOMINSKIndividual grant recipient: $65,625 · OtherIndividual grant recipientAGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA: $59,300 · OtherAGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICAIndividual grant recipient: $41,944 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $31,933 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $27,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $25,079 · OtherYESHIVA OF NORTH JERSEY: $17,500 · Other+119 more: $126,995 · Other+119 moreOHR NAAVA: $35,133 · Religion+2 more: $954 · ReligionYESHIVA ORCHOS CHAIM INC: $6,986 · EducationBAIS SHAINDEL: $4,300 · EducationSERVICES FOR CHILDREN WITH HIDDEN INTELLIGENCE: $720 · EducationSHARE OF NEW SQUARE INC DBA CHESED 247: $4,360 · Food & NutritionLAKEWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES CORP: $460 · Food & Nutrition+1 more: $120 · Food & NutritionBIKUR CHOLIM INC: $1,206 · HealthCHAI LIFELINE INC: $890 · HealthGUARDIANS OF THE SICK INC: $360 · HealthMISASKIM CORP: $316 · Human Services
Other$472,026Religion$36,087Education$12,006Food & Nutrition$4,940Health$2,456Human Services$316

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 budgetAGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA: $59,300 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetOHR NAAVA: $35,133 over 2y, 3.1% of budgetYESHIVA OF NORTH JERSEY: $17,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetYESHIVA ORCHOS CHAIM INC: $6,986 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetSHARE OF NEW SQUARE INC DBA CHESED 247: $4,360 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBAIS SHAINDEL: $4,300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWOMEN'S LEAGUE COMMUNITY RESIDENCES: $2,600 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBIKUR CHOLIM INC: $1,206 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $890 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetSERVICES FOR CHILDREN WITH HIDDEN INTELLIGENCE: $720 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLAKEWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES CORP: $460 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGUARDIANS OF THE SICK INC: $360 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMISASKIM CORP: $316 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetMASBIA: $120 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 AGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA ↗
  • Who funds OHR NAAVA ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA OF NORTH JERSEY ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA ORCHOS CHAIM INC ↗
  • Who funds SHARE OF NEW SQUARE INC DBA CHESED 247 ↗
  • Who funds BAIS SHAINDEL ↗
  • Who funds WOMEN'S LEAGUE COMMUNITY RESIDENCES ↗
  • Who funds BIKUR CHOLIM 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 FundNY32× affinity17 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Donors Fund Inc · David Rosenbaum Family Foundation · Eisenberg Family Foundation Inc · The Jimmy and Berta Khezrie Charitable Foundation · Mns Foundation · M & M Fischer Foundation · Yisroel Aryeh and Leib Foundation · Jewish Federation of Cleveland · Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore

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 D&I Appel Fam Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from D&I Appel Fam Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 33%
  • Lakewood Community Services Corp: 33% of income from government
  • Yeshiva Orchos Chaim Inc: 5% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to D&I Appel Fam Foundation?

Find your warmest path to D&I Appel Fam Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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 140 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on D&I Appel Fam’s filings →

More from the funding graph