Skip to content
Gilles and Debbie Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Gilles and Debbie 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.

$227k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$227k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0176% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Philanthropy$663kReligion$430kEducation$145kHuman Services$8kInternational$4kHealth$2kFood & Nutrition$54Other$0
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$226,941
Median grant
1
States reached
$352k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DETAILS OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION UPON REQUEST$226,941
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 (FY18–22, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 94% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND: $500 → 6%Advanced Mila Studies: $3k → 11%Advanced Mila Studies: $2k → 11%The Children's Bridge of Zichron Menachem INC: $2k → 17%Advanced Mila Studies: $1k → 11%The Children's Bridge of Zichron Menachem INC: $500 → 17%Avigdor's Helping Hand: $750 → 13%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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 30 repeat orgs$53k to everyone else

30 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 29 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

30
40

Total granted

$1.3M
$53k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+72%
+113%

Still filing today

37%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
ReligionHuman ServicesInternationalEducationHealthFood & NutritionOther
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

  • NC
    NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR FURTHERANCE OF JEWISH EDUCATION AND AFFILLIATES
    5× · 2018–2022 · $138k · revenue +36%
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC
    5× · 2018–2022 · $62k · revenue +72%
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MOSDOS MONTREAL INC
    4× · 2018–2021 · $15k · revenue +89%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $7k
  • SC
    Sephardic Cong Passaic Clifton
    one grant, 2018 · $6k
  • YK
    Yeshiva Ketana of Queens
    one grant, 2022 · $6k
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
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
3
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
—
4
American Friends of Amshinover Yeshiva Jerusalem Inc

Support of religious schools in Israel

International
5
American Friends of Zvi Latzadik Dba Breslov Research Institute Jerusalem

To foster jewish religious education and disseminate the teachings of rabbi nachman of breslov through publication and distribution of books and cds, as well as seminars, lectures and study groups.

International
6
American Friends of Oseh Chayil

To further jewish education in israel

Religion
7
American Friends of Yeshivat Hakotel Inc

To support religious, charitable, scientific, literary and/or educational programs

Education
8
Sherit Isroel
—
9
Friends of Yeshiva Beer Abraham

Furtherance of jewish education

Religion
10
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

—
11
Chabad Lametayel Inc

encourage and facilitate the observance of traditional orthodox Jewish practices around the world.

—
12
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of Yeshiva Dmir Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Afghan Jewish Foundation 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

20 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. 20 of the 71 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)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/20
Grantees still filing
19/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DETAILS OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION UPON REQUEST: $660,749 · OtherDETAILS OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION UPON REQUESTNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR FURTHERANCE OF JEWISH EDUCATION AND AFFILLIATES: $137,900 · OtherNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR FURTHERANCE OF JEWISH EDUCATION AND AFFILLIATESSephardic Jewish Cong & Center Of Queens: $133,555 · OtherSephardic Jewish Cong & Center Of QueensBias Yaakov Academy: $99,660 · OtherBias Yaakov AcademyYeshiva Ketana of Waterbury: $65,002 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $53,800 · Other+50 more: $81,600 · Other+50 moreAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC: $62,000 · InternationalCentral Fund of Israel: $3,500 · InternationalAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MOSDOS MONTREAL INC: $14,750 · ReligionCHOFETZ CHAIM OF LAKEWOOD: $1,800 · ReligionAMERICAN FRIENDS OF SAR YESHIVA NEHAR SHALOM INC: $1,300 · Religion+1 more: $404 · ReligionAdvanced Mila Studies Inc: $5,000 · Human ServicesCHILDRENS BRIDGE OF ZICHRON MENACHEM INC: $2,000 · Human ServicesAVIGDORS HELPING HAND INC: $750 · Human ServicesDAVIS MEMORIAL FUND INC: $500 · Human ServicesTOURO UNIVERSITY: $5,650 · EducationAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA OF KODSHIM: $1,220 · EducationCHAI LIFELINE INC: $1,268 · HealthFRIENDS OF YAD SARAH INC: $258 · HealthTOMCHEI SHABBOS D'LAKEWOOD INC: $54 · Food & Nutrition
Other$1,232,266International$65,500Religion$18,254Human Services$8,250Education$6,870Health$1,526Food & Nutrition$54

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 budgetNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR FURTHERANCE OF JEWISH EDUCATION AND AFFILLIATES: $137,900 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC: $62,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MOSDOS MONTREAL INC: $14,750 over 4y, 2.2% of budgetTOURO UNIVERSITY: $5,650 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetAdvanced Mila Studies Inc: $5,000 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetCHILDRENS BRIDGE OF ZICHRON MENACHEM INC: $2,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetTHE AFGHAN JEWISH FOUNDATION INC: $1,860 over 3y, 14% of budgetCHOFETZ CHAIM OF LAKEWOOD: $1,800 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF SAR YESHIVA NEHAR SHALOM INC: $1,300 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $1,268 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA OF KODSHIM: $1,220 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetAVIGDORS HELPING HAND INC: $750 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDAVIS MEMORIAL FUND INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTORAH LEARNING RESOURCES LTD: $404 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetAGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA: $260 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF YAD SARAH INC: $258 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYESHIVA ZICHRON MAYIR: $220 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPEYLIM LEV LACHIM: $54 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTOMCHEI SHABBOS D'LAKEWOOD INC: $54 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 NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR FURTHERANCE OF JEWISH EDUCATION AND AFFILLIATES ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MOSDOS MONTREAL INC ↗
  • Who funds TOURO UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds Advanced Mila Studies Inc ↗
  • Who funds Central Fund of Israel ↗
  • Who funds CHILDRENS BRIDGE OF ZICHRON MENACHEM INC ↗
  • Who funds THE AFGHAN JEWISH FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds CHOFETZ CHAIM OF LAKEWOOD ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF SAR YESHIVA NEHAR SHALOM INC ↗
  • Who funds CHAI LIFELINE INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA OF KODSHIM ↗

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.

Jewish Communal FundThe Ojc FundJack Adjmi Family Fou…Regina Goldwasser Fou…MaalotAhavas Avraham Founda…The Zev and Susan Mun…Cross River Community…Marbeh Shalom Foundat…National Philanthropi…Morgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…
Jewish Communal FundNY25.3× affinity14 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · The Ojc Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Regina Goldwasser Foundation · Maalot · Ahavas Avraham Foundation · The Zev and Susan Munk Family Foundation · Cross River Community Foundation · Marbeh Shalom Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program

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 Gilles and Debbie Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Gilles and Debbie Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%1%4%8%15%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
    4get no government money at all
    5report 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 71 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 Gilles and Debbie’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