Skip to content

· Private foundation

Hps Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$135k
Granted FY2025still arriving
70
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$80k
Largest
01What it funds
0167% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Philanthropy$697kReligion$660kArts & Culture$32kHuman Services$22kHousing & Shelter$11kCommunity Improvement$2kHealth$2kYouth Development$1kOther$0
02FY2025 · 70 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k68 grants · $44k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $11k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $80k
$200
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Kahal Adas Paya$80,000
VIA KEAP ST REALTY$10,825
Individual grant recipient$7,500
Avihem$6,000
Individual grant recipient$4,000
The OJC Fund$4,000
chasdei yitzchok$1,800
cong divrei eliezer$1,800
Individual grant recipient$1,500
CONG ZICHREN YEHUDA$1,500
Individual grant recipient$1,386
chasdei chaim$1,300
Various$1,200
american friends of chinuch jerusalem$1,000
Individual grant recipient$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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–25, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%CHAIM MEDICAL RESOURCES: $180 → 14%YISROEL RELIEF FUND: $50 → 11%TORAS MOSHE: $500 → 20%TORAS MOSHE: $400 → 20%TORAS MOSHE: $360 → 20%TORAS MOSHE: $300 → 20%Avihem: $8k → 20%Avihem: $6k → 20%AVIHEM: $5k → 20%Kimpatorin Aid: $36 → 20%Kimpatorin Aid: $36 → 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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 63 repeat orgs$203k to everyone else

63 repeat relationships: 35 still active in FY2025, 28 since wound down; 34 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

63
116

Total granted

$1.3M
$170k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+15%
+32%

Still filing today

11%
2%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $33k 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
Human ServicesReligionHealthEducationPublic BenefitPhilanthropyOther
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

  • AI
    AVIHEM INC
    3× · 2021–2025 · $19k · revenue +28%
  • MU
    MIKVAH USA INC
    2× · 2021–2023 · $5k · revenue +15%
  • KI
    KAPAYIM INC
    4× · 2021–2025 · $436 · revenue +55%

Funded once

  • CT
    CONG TOLDOS YITZCHOK INC
    one grant, 2021 · $50k
  • CY
    CONG YETEV LEV
    one grant, 2021 · $30k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $15k
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
Mishken Chaim Rivnits

Assistance to the indigent

Religion
2
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
3
Ezreinu Inc
Health
4
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
5
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
6
Bnei Moshe
Philanthropy
7
Zichron Moshe Elihu Tzedoka Fund
Philanthropy
8
Zichroin Rabbeini Meshilem Feiish Ztl Foundation
—
9
Zicron Eliyahu Inc
—
10
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
11
The Keren Rachaim Fund
—
12
Zichron Chaim Avraham Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chaim Medical Resource Inc; the most unlike its peers is Bnei Moshe Foundation. 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

16 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. 16 of the 214 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/16
Grantees still filing
12/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DETAILS OF CONTRIBUTION TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS AVAILABLE UPON REQUESET: $679,403 · OtherDETAILS OF CONTRIBUTION TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS AVAILABLE UPON REQUESETKHAL ADAS PAYE: $487,700 · OtherKHAL ADAS PAYE+185 more: $346,068 · Other+185 moreAVIHEM INC: $18,500 · Human ServicesTORAS MOSHE INC: $1,560 · Human Services+3 more: $302 · Human ServicesTHE OJC FUND: $17,200 · Education+1 more: $110 · EducationMIKVAH USA INC: $5,172 · ReligionBikvei Hatzon Inc: $410 · ReligionKAPAYIM INC: $436 · HealthREFUAH HELPLINE INCDBA REFUAH RESOURCES: $180 · HealthEZER LANITZRACHIM INC: $300 · PhilanthropyVYAZREIM INC: $100 · Public Benefit
Other$1,513,171Human Services$20,362Education$17,310Religion$5,582Health$616Philanthropy$300Public Benefit$100

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 budgetAVIHEM INC: $18,500 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetTHE OJC FUND: $17,200 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetMIKVAH USA INC: $5,172 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTORAS MOSHE INC: $1,560 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetKAPAYIM INC: $436 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetBikvei Hatzon Inc: $410 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetMIDRASH LMAN ACHI INC: $110 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetVYAZREIM INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKIMPATORIN AID INC: $72 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetYISROEL RELIEF FUND: $50 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 AVIHEM INC ↗
  • Who funds THE OJC FUND ↗
  • Who funds MIKVAH USA INC ↗
  • Who funds TORAS MOSHE 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 FundNY61× affinity48 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · S&E Foundation · D & E Steinmetz Foundation · I&S Foundation · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Bochner Foundation · Blum Foundation · Zelig and Rifky Weiss Family Foundation Inc · Strulovich Family Foundation Trust · American Friends of Bnai Levy Foundation · Zichron Chaim Charity Fund

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 Hps Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Hps 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 214 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 Hps’ filings →

    More from the funding graph