Skip to content

· Private foundation

Hirsch & Pearl Reichman 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.

$28k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$6k
Largest
01What it funds
0186% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Philanthropy$747kReligion$298kEducation$244kHuman Services$208kArts & Culture$30kHealth$28kOther$0
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$3,600
Median grant
2
States reached
$29k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$5,800
CCR LOAN FUND$5,000
CONG BOBOV$4,590
Individual grant recipient$3,600
LINKS$3,350
CONG TIFERES YAKOV$2,000
KOCHAVIM$1,700
Individual grant recipient$1,465
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 93% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%CONG ZICHRON SHLOMO: $17k → 14%BEISEINU: $6k → 16%EMUNIM NOTZER: $25k → 20%YESHIVA NESIV HATALMUD: $15k → 11%MESIVTA OF CLIFTON: $9k → 12%MESIVTA SHAREI TORAH: $107k → 14%BNOS ORCHOS CHAIM: $10k → 11%YESHIVA CLIFTON: $6k → 12%VARIOUS CHARITIES: $169k → 20%BNOS ORCHAS CHAIM: $10k → 11%L AND F SCHWARTZ FOUNDATION: $150k → 20%MASORAS AVOS: $9k → 11%VARIOUS CHARITIES: $127k → 20%EMEK HATORAH: $9k → 11%L AND F SCHWARTZ FOUNDATON: $96k → 20%YESHIVA NESIV HATALMUD: $7k → 11%L AND F SCHWARTZ FOUNDATION TRUST: $93k → 20%YESHIVA NER MOSHE: $7k → 11%L AND F SCHWARTZ FOUNDATON: $82k → 20%LITTLE LINKS: $72k → 20%YESHIVA KTANA OF BOBOV 45: $52k → 20%KHAL BOBOV: $50k → 20%TCR LOAN FUND: $49k → 20%TCR LOAN FUND: $35k → 20%L AND F SCHWARTZ FOUNDATION TRUST: $30k → 20%LITTLE LINKS: $28k → 20%LITTLE LINKS: $28k → 20%LITTLE LINKS: $27k → 20%LITTLE LINKS: $24k → 20%ZICHRON SHLOMO REFUAH FUND: $20k → 20%CONG OHR DOVID: $14k → 20%CONG MACHNE SHALVA: $13k → 20%SHMUEL WALD MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP FU: $13k → 20%LITTLE LINKS: $12k → 20%YESHIVA TIFERET SHMUEL DALEXANDER: $10k → 20%LITTLE LINKS: $10k → 20%CONG ZICHRON SHLOMO: $40k → 20%BAIS BRACHA: $10k → 20%PRESS FOUNDATION: $30k → 20%ZICHRON SHLOMO REFUAH FUND: $8k → 20%CONG AHAVAS CHESED DBOBOV: $20k → 20%KHAL BOBOV: $6k → 20%CONG MACHNE SHALVA: $19k → 20%NNMC: $15k → 20%YESHIVA BIRCHAS MOSHE: $8k → 20%YESHIVAT BIRCHAT MOSHE: $7k → 20%SHAAREI TORAH: $9k → 20%BAIS YAKOV DR MEIR: $8k → 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.

75%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 13 repeat orgs$424k to everyone else

13 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
25

Total granted

$1.3M
$397k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-51%
+54%

Still filing today

15%
12%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $28k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationYouth DevelopmentPhilanthropyReligionOther
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

  • VC
    VARIOUS CHARITIES
    2× · 2017–2018 · $296k
  • LF
    L & F SCHWARTZ FOUNDATION TRUST
    3× · 2019–2022 · $273k · revenue -100%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    7× · 2018–2024 · $201k

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $107k
  • YK
    YESHIVA KETANA OF BOBOV 45 INC
    one grant, 2023 · $52k
  • PF
    PRESS FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2018 · $30k
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

6 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. 6 of the 46 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)
6/6
Grantees still filing
3/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

VARIOUS CHARITIES: $295,822 · OtherVARIOUS CHARITIESIndividual grant recipient: $200,551 · OtherIndividual grant recipientL AND F SCHWARTZ FOUNDATON: $178,000 · OtherL AND F SCHWARTZ FOUNDATONIndividual grant recipient: $107,120 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTCR LOAN FUND: $83,950 · OtherTCR LOAN FUNDIndividual grant recipient: $62,348 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $55,500 · OtherYESHIVA KETANA OF BOBOV 45 INC: $52,100 · Other+32 more: $346,766 · Other+32 moreL & F SCHWARTZ FOUNDATION TRUST: $273,000 · Youth DevelopmentL & F SCHWARTZ FOU…BNOS ORCHOS CHAIM INC: $20,000 · EducationMESIVTA OF CLIFTON INC: $8,800 · EducationKOCHAVIM INC: $1,700 · EducationMESIVTA NEZER HATALMUD INC: $5,000 · PhilanthropyMIKVAH USA INC: $5,000 · Religion
Other$1,382,157Youth Development$273,000Education$30,500Philanthropy$5,000Religion$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBNOS ORCHOS CHAIM INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetMESIVTA OF CLIFTON INC: $8,800 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMESIVTA NEZER HATALMUD INC: $5,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetMIKVAH USA INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetKOCHAVIM INC: $1,700 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 L & F SCHWARTZ FOUNDATION TRUST ↗
  • Who funds BNOS ORCHOS CHAIM INC ↗
  • Who funds MESIVTA OF CLIFTON INC ↗
  • Who funds MESIVTA NEZER HATALMUD INC ↗
  • Who funds MIKVAH USA 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 FundNY19.7× affinity8 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · Mazal Charitable Trust · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile 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 Hirsch & Pearl Reichman Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Hirsch & Pearl Reichman Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%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
    2get 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 46 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 Hirsch & Pearl Reichman’s filings →

    More from the funding graph