Skip to content

· Private foundation

Ebg Charitable 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.

$104k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$63k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

60% of Ebg Charitable Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to The Ojc Fund, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 4 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Organizations named directly on the return

1
’17
2
’18
2
’19
3
’20
4
’21
4
’22
4
’23
2
’24
4
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

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$408kPhilanthropy$131kRecreation & Sports$6kEducation$5kArts & Culture$1kOther$0
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $29k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $12k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $63k
$6,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
The OJC Fund$62,500
Yeshiva Darkei Emunah Bnos Bina$12,000
Individual grant recipient$8,000
Cong Keren Nisien Zichron Feiga Inc$6,000
Bnos Square OF Williamsburh$5,000
Eiruv Of Monsey$5,000
Zichron Shimshon Foundation INC$5,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 37% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 15%Chabad of Olympia Monsey NY Inc: $64k → 14%TALMUD TOREH DNITRA: $10k → 20%Yeshiva Tzoin Yosef Pupa Inc: $60k → 14%Bnos Square OF Williamsburh: $5k → 20%Congregation Keren Ezrah Inc: $30k → 14%Cong Yetev Lev Dsatmar Inc: $25k → 20%Chabad of Olympia Monsey NY Inc: $22k → 14%BETH CHANA SCHOOL: $5k → 20%Cong Kehilath Yakov Pupa of Monsey: $12k → 14%Cong Vhugisu: $8k → 20%Cong Kehilath Yakov Pupa of Monsey: $10k → 14%The OJC Fund: $63k → 20%Chasdei Yosof: $8k → 14%The OJC Fund: $35k → 20%BNOS ESTHER PUPA: $8k → 14%The OJC Fund: $10k → 20%Cong Keren Nisien Zichron Feiga Inc: $6k → 14%Cong Ahavas Tzdokah Vchesed: $10k → 20%Eiruv Of Monsey: $5k → 14%THE OJC FUND: $10k → 20%Zichron Shimshon Foundation INC: $5k → 14%BAYIS ESTHER: $8k → 20%CONG KEHILATH YAKOV PUPA OF MONSEY: $5k → 14%THE OJC FUND: $6k → 20%CONG KEHILATH YAKOV PUPA OF MONSEY: $5k → 14%YESHIVA IMRAI YOSEF: $4k → 20%Congregation Keren Nisien Zichron Feiga Inc: $4k → 14%THE OJC FUND: $3k → 20%CHABAD OF OLYMPIA MONSEY NY INC: $3k → 14%KOLEL KEHILATH YAKOV PUPA: $4k → 20%CONG KEHILATH YAKOV PUPA OF MONSEY: $3k → 14%Kolel Kehilath Yakov Pupa: $4k → 20%CONG KAHAL CHAREIDIM DOLIMPIA: $2k → 14%Kolel Kehilath Yakov Pupa: $4k → 20%KEREN NESSIEN ZICHRON FEIGE: $1k → 14%KOLEL KEHILATH YAKOV PUPA: $3k → 20%CONG KEHILATH YAKOV PUPA OF MONSEY: $1k → 14%KOLEL KEHILATH YAKOV PUPA: $3k → 20%Yeshiva Darkei Emunah Bnos Binah: $36k → 14%Yeshiva Darkei Emunah Bnos Bina: $20k → 14%Yeshiva Darkei Emunah Bnos Bina: $12k → 14%Kesser Bais Yakov: $12k → 14%Yeshiva Tzoin Yosef Pupa Inc: $10k → 14%BNOS ESTHER PUPA: $10k → 14%Mosdos Pupa Monsey: $9k → 14%Cong Kehilath Yakov Pupa of Monsey: $6k → 14%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.

66%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$303k · 6 repeat orgs$155k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
13

Total granted

$303k
$126k

Still filing today

0%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 29% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $29k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
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

  • CO
    CHABAD OF OLYMPIA MONSEY NY INC
    3× · 2020–2023 · $89k
  • YT
    YESHIVA TZOIN YOSEF PUPA INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $70k
  • YD
    YESHIVA DARKEI EMUNAH BNOS BINAH
    3× · 2022–2025 · $68k

Funded once

  • CK
    CONGREGATION KEREN ECRAH INC
    one grant, 2021 · $30k
  • CY
    Cong Yetev Lev Dsatmar Inc
    one grant, 2022 · $25k
  • KB
    KESSER BAIS YAKOV
    one grant, 2023 · $12k
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 25 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)
2/2
Grantees still filing
2/2
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHABAD OF OLYMPIA MONSEY NY INC: $89,000 · OtherCHABAD OF OLYMPIA MONSEY NY INCYESHIVA TZOIN YOSEF PUPA INC: $70,000 · OtherYESHIVA TZOIN YOSEF PUPA INCYESHIVA DARKEI EMUNAH BNOS BINAH: $68,000 · OtherYESHIVA DARKEI EMUNAH BNOS BINAHCONG KEHILATH YAKOV PUPA OF MONSEY: $41,500 · OtherCONG KEHILATH YAKOV PUPA OF MONSEYCONGREGATION KEREN ECRAH INC: $30,000 · OtherCONGREGATION KEREN ECRAH INCCong Yetev Lev Dsatmar Inc: $25,000 · OtherCong Yetev Lev Dsatmar IncIndividual grant recipient: $17,500 · OtherKolel Kehilath Yakov Pupa: $16,800 · Other+15 more: $95,100 · Other+15 moreTHE OJC FUND: $126,000 · EducationTHE OJC FUNDTHE ZICHRON SHIMSHON FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · Philanthropy
Other$452,900Education$126,000Philanthropy$5,000

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 budgetTHE OJC FUND: $126,000 over 6y, 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 THE OJC FUND ↗
  • Who funds THE ZICHRON SHIMSHON FOUNDATION 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 FundNY28.4× affinity13 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · 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 Ebg Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ebg Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%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
    0get 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 25 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 Ebg’s filings →

    More from the funding graph