Skip to content

· Private foundation

Erwin & Ruth Zafir Foundation Inc

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.

$1.4M
Granted FY2024still arriving
55
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$180k
Largest
01What it funds
0188% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$4.1MEducation$2.4MPhilanthropy$1.1MHuman Services$270kHealth$200kInternational$103kFood & Nutrition$17kArts & Culture$15kOther$0
02FY2024 · 55 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k30 grants · $151k
  • $10k–50k15 grants · $317k
  • $50k–250k10 grants · $947k
$8,567
Median grant
4
States reached
$15M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$180,000
YESHIVA MEOR EYNAYIM$146,600
AGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA$115,500
BMG$115,000
Individual grant recipient$96,000
THE DONORS FUND$75,450
MIKVAH YISROEL$68,000
CONG SHOMER SHABBOS$50,000
Individual grant recipient$50,000
SARA BROKER HACNOSAS KALLAH$50,000
YESHIVA TORAH VODAATH$44,330
Individual grant recipient$43,000
Individual grant recipient$30,000
VARIOUS DONATIONS (ADDRESS AVAILABLE UPON REQUESTED)$28,392
Individual grant recipient$26,000
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 (FY17–23, $234k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 97% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%AHAVAS TZEDOKOS: $2k → 11%ZICHRON MATTEL: $2k → 11%BIKUR CHOLIM OF LAKEWOOD: $1k → 11%ELM LEAH: $1k → 11%AHAVAS TZEDAKA: $500 → 11%RENEWAL OF LIFE: $19k → 20%RENEWAL OF LIFE: $19k → 20%A TIME: $17k → 20%RENEWAL OF LIFE: $10k → 20%A TIME: $10k → 20%A TIME: $7k → 20%BONEI OLAM: $25k → 20%MISASKIM: $23k → 20%MISASKIM: $21k → 20%BONEI OLAM: $18k → 20%MISASKIM: $18k → 20%BONEI OLAM: $18k → 20%MISASKIM: $12k → 20%MISASKIM: $10k → 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

IL
NY
MA
OH
PA
NJ
CA
MD
NC
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.

73%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.7M · 68 repeat orgs$2.1M to everyone else

68 repeat relationships: 32 still active in FY2024, 36 since wound down; 20 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

68
195

Total granted

$5.7M
$1.7M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+68%

Still filing today

19%
10%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $427k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesReligionEducationPhilanthropyFood & NutritionHealthOther
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

  • SR
    SHUVU RETURN INC
    6× · 2017–2024 · $92k · revenue +13%
  • MC
    MISASKIM CORP
    5× · 2017–2023 · $84k · revenue +34%
  • BO
    Bonei Olam Inc
    3× · 2021–2023 · $61k · revenue +24%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $234k
  • S
    SQUARE
    one grant, 2022 · $100k
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF KIRYAT ARBA
    one grant, 2023 · $100k
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
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
2
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

—
3
Ahavas Torah V'chesed
Philanthropy
4
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
5
Zichron Meshilem Feish Inc

Provides finacial assistance to needy individuals and to religious, charitable organizations

—
6
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
7
Zicron Eliyahu Inc
—
8
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
9
Keren Avraham Shmuel Inc Wachman
Philanthropy
10
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
11
Zocher Chasdai Ovos

Jewish Observance of Shabbos, Chagim, Torah Learning

Religion
12
Mishken Chaim Rivnits

Assistance to the indigent

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Keren Hashviis Inc; the most unlike its peers is Emergency Aid Fund. 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

37 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. 37 of the 286 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)
11
Early backer (in before they grew)
36/37
Grantees still filing
31/37
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

YESHIVA MEOR ENAIM: $906,400 · OtherYESHIVA MEOR ENAIMBMG: $660,000 · OtherBMGAGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA: $468,800 · OtherAGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICAIndividual grant recipient: $458,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientVARIOUS DONATIONS (ADDRESS AVAILABLE UPON REQUESTED): $329,090 · OtherCONG YESHIVA BAIS HILLEL: $280,000 · OtherKOLLEL SHABOS KODESH: $265,000 · Other+172 more: $4,244,678 · Other+172 moreDONORS FUND INC: $364,720 · PhilanthropySHUVU RETURN INC: $92,000 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN FRIENDS OF REFUAH VCHAIM INC: $53,250 · Philanthropy+1 more: $2,000 · PhilanthropyMISASKIM CORP: $83,900 · Human ServicesBonei Olam Inc: $61,000 · Human ServicesRENEWAL OF LIFE INC: $47,800 · Human ServicesA Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange: $34,400 · Human Services+1 more: $1,900 · Human ServicesTHE OJC FUND: $63,100 · EducationBAIS TOVA INC: $57,500 · EducationFriends of Tiferet Tzion Inc: $38,000 · Education+2 more: $7,100 · EducationKEREN HASHVIIS INC: $50,000 · ReligionAMERICAN FRIENDS OF CHAIM LAYELED: $8,600 · ReligionKUPAS YOM TOV INC: $5,000 · Religion+1 more: $2,000 · ReligionVAAD LTZORCHAY REFUAH: $20,525 · HealthTOMCHE SHABBOS OF BORO PARK AND FLA: $10,000 · Food & NutritionSHARE OF NEW SQUARE INC DBA CHESED 247: $3,600 · Food & Nutrition
Other$7,612,468Philanthropy$511,970Human Services$229,000Education$165,700Religion$65,600Health$20,525Food & Nutrition$13,600

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA: $468,800 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetDONORS FUND INC: $364,720 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetSHUVU RETURN INC: $92,000 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetMISASKIM CORP: $83,900 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetTHE OJC FUND: $63,100 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetBonei Olam Inc: $61,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetBAIS TOVA INC: $57,500 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF REFUAH VCHAIM INC: $53,250 over 4y, 5.4% of budgetKEREN HASHVIIS INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetRENEWAL OF LIFE INC: $47,800 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetFriends of Tiferet Tzion Inc: $38,000 over 3y, 1.2% of budgetA Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange: $34,400 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetVAAD LTZORCHAY REFUAH: $20,525 over 5y, 4.0% of budgetMISHKAN HACHESED INC: $10,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF CHAIM LAYELED: $8,600 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetFRIENDS OF AKIM USA INC: $5,800 over 2y, 5.2% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA OF KODSHIM: $5,100 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSHARE OF NEW SQUARE INC DBA CHESED 247: $3,600 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetEmergency Aid Fund: $3,000 over 3y, 1.2% of budgetFRIENDS OF ADERES HATORAH INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetKEREN EVEN HABOCHEN INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetKOLLEL TORAH INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 DONORS FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds SHUVU RETURN INC ↗
  • Who funds MISASKIM CORP ↗
  • Who funds THE OJC FUND ↗
  • Who funds Bonei Olam Inc ↗
  • Who funds BAIS TOVA INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF REFUAH VCHAIM INC ↗
  • Who funds KEREN HASHVIIS 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 FundNY65.4× affinity54 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Donors Fund Inc · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Zichron Btz Tzedakah Foundation · The Sorala Foundation · The Jimmy and Berta Khezrie Charitable Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Jewish Communal Fund · Zichron Chaim Charity Fund · Regina Goldwasser Foundation · The Fishoff Family Foundation · Zichron Yechiel Mechel 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 Erwin & Ruth Zafir Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Erwin & Ruth Zafir Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 130%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Bais Tova Inc: 7% of income from government
  • Yeshiva Tiferes Boruch: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
13get 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 · 0–10%
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 286 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 Erwin & Ruth Zafir’s filings →

More from the funding graph