Skip to content
Eddie & Shawna Azar Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Eddie & Shawna Azar 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.

$162k
Granted FY2025still arriving
26
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$37k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0170% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$247kHealth$146kEducation$107kHuman Services$40kFood & Nutrition$35kInternational$16kPhilanthropy$3kRecreation & Sports$3kOther$0
02FY2025 · 26 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k20 grants · $28k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $135k
$1,095
Median grant
4
States reached
$2k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BETH TORAH$37,397
Individual grant recipient$34,500
BARKAI FOUNDATION INC$21,600
MORRIS FRANCO CANCER CENTER$20,250
SBH-SEPHARDIC BIKUR HOLIM$10,720
SEPHARDIC FOOD FUND$10,360
SPECIAL CHILDRENS CENTER$6,701
UJA$5,501
SHUVI NAFSHI FOUNDATION$2,600
HILLEL YESHIVA$2,500
MITZVAH MAN FOUNDATION$1,800
Individual grant recipient$1,226
RENEWAL$1,095
BIKE4CHAI$1,002
NESACH YISRAEL INSTITUTE$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 (FY21–25, $18k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 43% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%ISRAEL MEDICAL FUND: $360 → 17%SPECIAL CHILDRENS CENTER: $7k → 11%SPECIAL CHILDRENS CENTER: $2k → 11%SPECIAL CHILDRENS CENTER: $1k → 11%SPECIAL CHILDRENS CENTER: $681 → 11%MITZVAH MAN FOUNDATION: $2k → 20%MITZVAH MAN FOUNDATION: $2k → 20%MITZVAH MAN FOUNDATION: $1k → 20%MITZVAH MAN FOUNDATION: $1k → 20%MITZVAH MAN FOUNDATION: $1k → 20%AHAVA BABY: $180 → 20%AHAVA BABY: $180 → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
NY
MA
OH
PA
NJ
CA
AR
DC
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.

75%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$566k · 36 repeat orgs$189k to everyone else

36 repeat relationships: 20 still active in FY2025, 16 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

36
63

Total granted

$566k
$153k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+9%

Still filing today

33%
17%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 78% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $36k 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 ServicesHealthEducationInternationalPhilanthropyOther
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

  • GT
    GATEWAY TO THE FUTURE INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $36k · revenue +19%
  • TS
    THE SPECIAL CHILDREN CENTER
    4× · 2021–2025 · $10k · revenue +88%
  • SN
    Shuvi Nafshi Foundation INC
    4× · 2021–2025 · $8k · revenue +22%

Funded once

  • SM
    SEPHARDIC MIKVEH OF MIDWOOD INC
    one grant, 2024 · $29k · revenue +11%
  • BT
    BETH TORAH CONGREGATION
    one grant, 2020 · $26k
  • NY
    New York Cancer Center Inc
    one grant, 2021 · $22k · revenue -35%
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
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
2
Sherit Isroel
—
3
Shaarei Halacha Inc
Philanthropy
4
Yeshivat Leluv of Jerusalem Inc

Charitable work to help people in need

—
5
Zohar Hatorah Inc

Religious School

Religion
6
American Friends of Shviti Hashem Inc

To support and promote the study of torah (bible) among members of jewish faith worldwide.

Religion
7
Tal Hashamayim Foundation
Religion
8
American Friends of Hakav Hameached Inc

To help and support children with rare sybfromes and disorders and their families. to help and support children victimized and traumatized by terror attacks and thier families.

International
9
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
10
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

—
11
Ohr Yisrael Yeshiva Inc

Ohr Yisrael is a religious institution that provides religious services and instruction to Rabbis and community members.

Religion
12
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Pef Israel Endowment Funds Inc; the most unlike its peers is Hillel the Foundation for Jewish Campus Life. 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

25 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. 25 of the 105 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)
24/25
Grantees still filing
14/25
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MORRIS FRANCO CANCER CENTER: $80,250 · OtherMORRIS FRANCO CANCER CENTERCONGREGATION BETH TORAH: $60,742 · OtherCONGREGATION BETH TORAHBETH TORAH: $57,954 · OtherBETH TORAHSBH-SEPHARDIC BIKUR HOLIM: $55,101 · OtherSBH-SEPHARDIC BIKUR HOLIMYESHIVAH OF FLATBUSH: $36,819 · OtherYESHIVAH OF FLATBUSHIndividual grant recipient: $34,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientBETH TORAH CONGREGATION: $25,952 · OtherUJA: $21,701 · Other+79 more: $123,420 · Other+79 moreBARKAI FOUNDATION INC: $107,264 · EducationBARKAI FOUNDATIO…+1 more: $540 · EducationSEPHARDIC MIKVEH OF MIDWOOD INC: $28,800 · ReligionShuvi Nafshi Foundation INC: $8,001 · Religion+4 more: $2,640 · ReligionGATEWAY TO THE FUTURE INC: $35,500 · Philanthropy+1 more: $540 · PhilanthropyTHE SEPHARDIC FOOD FUND INC: $32,640 · Food & NutritionNew York Cancer Center Inc: $22,360 · HealthSIMHA ORGANIZATION INC: $2,000 · Health+1 more: $360 · HealthTHE SPECIAL CHILDREN CENTER: $10,382 · Human ServicesMITZVAH MAN FOUNDATION CORP: $7,000 · Human Services+2 more: $720 · Human Services
Other$496,439Education$107,804Religion$39,441Philanthropy$36,040Food & Nutrition$32,640Health$24,720Human Services$18,102

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBARKAI FOUNDATION INC: $107,264 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetGATEWAY TO THE FUTURE INC: $35,500 over 4y, 5.5% of budgetTHE SEPHARDIC FOOD FUND INC: $32,640 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetSEPHARDIC MIKVEH OF MIDWOOD INC: $28,800 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetNew York Cancer Center Inc: $22,360 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHE SPECIAL CHILDREN CENTER: $10,382 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetShuvi Nafshi Foundation INC: $8,001 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetMITZVAH MAN FOUNDATION CORP: $7,000 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetSEPHARDIC COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER INC: $2,600 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSIMHA ORGANIZATION INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF UNITED HATZALAH INC: $1,845 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSAFE FOUNDATION INC: $1,002 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNEFESH YEHUDIE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHARIDY GLOBAL FOUNDATION: $861 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetYESHIVA KETER TORAH INC: $540 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE KESHER ORGANIZATION INC: $540 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetYAD EZRA V'SHULAMIT: $404 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAHAVA BABY INC: $360 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $360 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetISRAEL MEDICAL FUND CORP: $360 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKIDS OF COURAGE INC: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTorat Shraga Inc: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOhr Halacha Inc: $100 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 BARKAI FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds GATEWAY TO THE FUTURE INC ↗
  • Who funds THE SEPHARDIC FOOD FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds SEPHARDIC MIKVEH OF MIDWOOD INC ↗
  • Who funds New York Cancer Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE SPECIAL CHILDREN CENTER ↗
  • Who funds Shuvi Nafshi Foundation INC ↗
  • Who funds MITZVAH MAN FOUNDATION CORP ↗
  • Who funds SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds SIMHA ORGANIZATION INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF UNITED HATZALAH 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.

Jack Adjmi Family Fou…Jewish Communal FundThe Howard Hoffman & …Haddad Brands Family …The Ralph S Gindi Fam…The Victor Azrak & So…Isaac J Chehebar Char…The Dweck and Rahmey …Samuel & Mollie Jemal…Jack D Cohen Foundati…Albert & Melissa Sutt…E R G Foundation
Jack Adjmi Family Foundation IncNY42.1× affinity19 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · The Howard Hoffman & Sons Foundation Inc · Haddad Brands Family Foundation · The Ralph S Gindi Family Foundation · The Victor Azrak & Sons Family Foundation Inc · Isaac J Chehebar Charitable Trust Isaac J Chehebar Trustee · The Dweck and Rahmey Family Foundation · Samuel & Mollie Jemal Foundation Co Jem Realty · Jack D Cohen Foundation Inc · Albert & Melissa Sutton Foundation · E R G 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 Eddie & Shawna Azar Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Eddie & Shawna Azar Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 4%
  • Yeshiva Keter Torah Inc: 4% of income from government
  • The Special Children Center: 3% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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 Eddie & Shawna Azar Charitable Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Eddie & Shawna Azar Charitable 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 105 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 Eddie & Shawna Azar’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