· Private foundation
Harvey and Shelli Dachs Charitable Foundation Trust
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 52% of HARVEY AND SHELLI DACHS CHARITABLE FOUNDATION TRUST’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k29 grants · $42k
- $10k–50k15 grants · $331k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CHAI LIFELINE | $41,100 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF KEREN ACHIM | $35,000 |
| HEBREW ACADEMY OF LONG BEACH | $33,000 |
| HEBREW ACADEMY OF FIVE TOWNS AND ROCKAWAY | $32,000 |
| FRIENDS OF ISRAEL DISABLED VETERANS | $25,000 |
| CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL | $25,000 |
| JEWISH NATIONAL FUND | $25,000 |
| EMUNAH OF AMERICA | $20,460 |
| YOUNG ISRAEL OF WOODMERE | $19,595 |
| MESIVTA YESHIVA RABBI CHAIM BERLIN | $18,000 |
| FRIENDS OF MISHTERET ISRAEL | $15,000 |
| YESHIVAS MIR YERUSHALAYIM | $11,000 |
| OHEL CHILDRENS HOME AND FAMILY SERVICES | $10,400 |
| SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY CENTER | $10,000 |
| SHULAMIT SCHOOL FOR GIRLS | $10,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY22–24, $14k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 87% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +50% since the first grant, against +17% for the ones you funded once.
40 repeat relationships — 31 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 13 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $108k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- CLCHAI LIFELINE INC5× · 2020–2024 · $190k · revenue +43%
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF NETIV ARYEH INC4× · 2020–2023 · $133k · revenue +61%
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MATAN INC3× · 2021–2024 · $39k · revenue +26%
Funded once
- CKCONGREGATION KOZOVER ZICHRON CHAIM SHLOIMEone grant, 2021 · $100k
- DRDIABETES RESEARCH INSTITUTION FOUNDATIONone grant, 2021 · $10k
- CSCONGREGATION SONS OF ISRAELone grant, 2023 · $8k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Religious School
To further jewish education in israel
To support religious, charitable, scientific, literary and/or educational programs
To promote and support jewish religious charitable and educational activities in israel & usa.
To support and promote the study of torah (bible) among members of jewish faith worldwide.
To promote, benefit, and support Jewish religious, charitable & educational activities in Israel and the USA.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Emunah of America Inc and the most unlike its peers is Sephardic Community Youth Center Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 34 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
28 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 28 of the 85 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds CHAI LIFELINE INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF NETIV ARYEH INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MATAN INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC ↗
- Who funds EMUNAH OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF KEREN ACHIM ↗
- Who funds Central Fund of Israel ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF ISRAEL DISABLED VETERANS INC ↗
- Who funds SHULAMITH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS INC ↗
- Who funds Ohel Childrens Home & Family Services Inc ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN COMMITTEE FOR SHAARE ZEDEK HOSPITAL IN JERUSALEM INC ↗
- Who funds THE LAWFARE PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds MAALOT ↗
- Who funds KEMACH USA INC ↗
- Who funds TORAH ACADEMY OF BERGEN COUNTY ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA ORCHOS CHAIM INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · The Ojc Fund · Cross River Community Foundation · Fjc · United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York Inc · Royal Heritage Foundation Inc · Center for Initiatives in Jewish Education · Caroline & Joseph S Gruss Life Monument Funds Inc · F G Foundation · Stephen and Regina Savitsky Foundation · Alyad Foundation Inc · The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Harvey and Shelli Dachs Charitable Foundation Trust funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Yeshiva Orchos Chaim Inc — 5% of income from government
- Sharsheret Inc — 4% of income from government
- Torah Academy of Bergen County — 0% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.