Skip to content
Gevuois Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Gevuois 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.

$326k
Granted FY2024still arriving
25
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0172% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Religion$1.6MHuman Services$27kPhilanthropy$16kEducation$2kOther$0
02FY2024 · 25 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k13 grants · $48k
  • $10k–50k12 grants · $277k
$9,705
Median grant
2
States reached
$3.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
KEREN ZICHRON SHMIEL ZANVEL$49,595
CONGREGATION OF AVNEI SHLOMO$35,625
CONGREGATION ADAS YEREIM$33,950
Individual grant recipient$31,298
CONGREGATION TOLDOS NAFTALI$22,055
Individual grant recipient$19,500
CONGREGATION KEREN YOSEF$19,005
Individual grant recipient$14,900
CONG YETEV LEV SOUTH 8$13,925
RAV CHESED$13,745
Individual grant recipient$12,690
CONG MACHNE RAV TOV$11,000
Individual grant recipient$9,705
YESHIVA KETANA SATMAR$8,025
CONGREGATION HABONES INC$6,700
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CONGREGATION LIVNAI YSIROEL: $18k → 9%Khal Torath Chaim of Rockland: $69k → 14%MOSDOS VYOEL MOSHE: $31k → 14%TOLDOS RAFUEL KASHO: $16k → 16%CONG YETEV LEV DSATMAR CYL INC: $25k → 20%CONGREGATION KEREN YOSEF: $19k → 11%KHAL TORATH CHAIM: $45k → 14%Cong Toldos Refuel Kasho: $13k → 16%Khal Torath Chaim: $25k → 14%Khal Torath Chaim: $15k → 14%Khal Torath Chaim: $13k → 14%Yeshiva D' Monsey: $12k → 14%UNITED TALMUDICAL ACADEMY: $17k → 20%UNITED TALMUDICAL ACADEMY: $15k → 20%CONGREGATION OF AVNEI SHLOMO: $36k → 14%CONGREGATION BNEI YISOCHER: $20k → 20%Congregation Kahal Bais Usher Mordc: $22k → 14%THE OJC FUND: $16k → 20%Congregation Kahal Bais Usher Mordc: $22k → 14%Yeshiva Tifereth Shmiel D'Aleksander: $13k → 20%CONG BNEI YISROEL: $16k → 14%Congregation Imrei Pinchas Koritz: $25k → 20%CONGREGATION TOLDOS NAFTALI: $22k → 20%CONGREGATION TOLDOS NAFTALI: $12k → 20%YESHIVA KEHILATH YAKOV: $15k → 20%YESHIVA KEHILATH YAKOV: $15k → 20%CONG MACHNE RAV TOV: $11k → 20%MACHNE RAV TOV: $100k → 20%MACHNE RAV TOV: $100k → 20%KEREN ZICHRON SHMIEL ZANVEL: $50k → 20%MACHNE RAV TOV: $39k → 20%KEREN ZICHRON SHMIEL ZANVEL: $38k → 20%CONGREGATION ADAS YEREIM: $34k → 20%Congregation Bais Usher Mordche Inc: $23k → 20%Congregation Yeshiva Bnei Yesoscher: $20k → 20%UNITED TALMUDICAL SEMINARY: $20k → 20%Cong Toldos Rafuel Kasho: $19k → 20%CONG SHAAR NAFTULAH: $15k → 20%CONG YETEV LEV SOUTH 8: $14k → 20%CONGREGATION AGUDAS YEHUDA: $13k → 20%UNITED TALMUDICAL ACADEMY: $11k → 20%Cong Divrei Yoel Dsatmar Inc: $300k → 20%Cong Divrei Yoel Dsatmar Inc: $85k → 20%RAV CHESED: $32k → 20%RAV CHESED: $23k → 20%RAV CHESED: $22k → 20%RAV CHESED: $20k → 20%RAV CHESED: $14k → 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.

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.7M · 49 repeat orgs$403k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +99% since the first grant, against -2% for those funded once.

49 repeat relationships: 18 still active in FY2024, 31 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

49
81

Total granted

$1.7M
$329k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+99%
-2%

Still filing today

4%
4%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 77% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $74k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
PhilanthropyEducationReligionOther
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

  • CD
    CONG DIVREI YOEL DSATMAR INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $385k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    3× · 2021–2023 · $239k
  • RC
    RAV CHESED
    5× · 2020–2024 · $111k

Funded once

  • KT
    KHAL TORATH CHAIM OF ROCKLAND
    one grant, 2021 · $69k
  • CI
    CONGREGATION IMREI PINCHAS KORITZ
    one grant, 2023 · $25k
  • CY
    Congregation Yeshiva Bnei Yesoscher
    one grant, 2023 · $20k
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

7 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. 7 of the 138 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)
6/7
Grantees still filing
2/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONG DIVREI YOEL DSATMAR INC: $385,000 · OtherCONG DIVREI YOEL DSATMAR INCIndividual grant recipient: $239,300 · OtherIndividual grant recipientRAV CHESED: $111,085 · OtherRAV CHESEDKOLEL VIZNITZ: $111,000 · OtherKOLEL VIZNITZKEREN ZICHRON SHMIEL ZANVEL: $99,940 · OtherUNITED TALMUDICAL ACADEMY: $71,385 · OtherKHAL TORATH CHAIM OF ROCKLAND: $69,000 · Other+125 more: $978,950 · Other+125 moreKEREN YOSEF INC: $21,440 · PhilanthropyKeren Ezra Memitzuka Inc: $5,950 · Philanthropy+1 more: $340 · PhilanthropyTHE OJC FUND: $16,000 · EducationMesivta Ahavas Hatorah: $1,000 · EducationDARKEI SHMUEL INC: $1,300 · Religion
Other$2,065,660Philanthropy$27,730Education$17,000Religion$1,300

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 budgetKEREN YOSEF INC: $21,440 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetTHE OJC FUND: $16,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKeren Ezra Memitzuka Inc: $5,950 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetALUMNI OF THE RABBINICAL COLLEGE KNESSETH ISRAEL OF SLABODKA KOWNA: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDARKEI SHMUEL INC: $1,300 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetMesivta Ahavas Hatorah: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKOL YEHUDA INC: $340 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 KEREN YOSEF INC ↗
  • Who funds THE OJC FUND ↗

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 FundAmerican Friends of B…Strulovich Family Fou…Jack Adjmi Family Fou…Hf FoundationChayim V ChesedS&E FoundationJ & R FoundationVyazreim IncThe Lexicon Foundatio…Asm Family Charitable…Greenzweig Family Fou…
The Ojc FundNY70.6× affinity57 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · American Friends of Bnai Levy Foundation · Strulovich Family Foundation Trust · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Hf Foundation · Chayim V Chesed · S&E Foundation · J & R Foundation · Vyazreim Inc · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · Asm Family Charitable Foundation Trust · Greenzweig Family 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 Gevuois Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Gevuois Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
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
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 138 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 Gevuois’ 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