Skip to content

· Private foundation

I&S Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$266k
Granted FY2025still arriving
69
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it funds
0160% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Philanthropy$615kReligion$506kYouth Development$137kAnimals$100kHuman Services$26kHealth$25kCommunity Improvement$18kPublic Benefit$2kOther$0
02FY2025 · 69 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k65 grants · $54k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $40k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $172k
$500
Median grant
3
States reached
$2.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
cong Minchus Chinch$100,000
CONGREGATION TOLDOS AHARON$71,940
Individual grant recipient$30,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF CHINUCH JERUSALEM INC$7,200
cong Minchas Yuir$5,000
CONGREGATION CHASADIM TOVIM INC$4,125
various$3,608
Individual grant recipient$3,000
ACHIAZER$2,460
Congregation YL south 8$2,150
KHAL ADAS PAYE$1,600
TOV VCHESED$1,500
CONGREGATION YETEV LEV D SATMAR OF 15TH AVE$1,470
Individual grant recipient$1,181
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, $19k) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%TZIDKAS AVRAHAM INC: $3k → 28%TZIDKAS AVRAHAM: $1k → 28%TZIDKAS AVRAHAM: $550 → 28%TZIDKAS AVRAHAM INC: $550 → 28%TZIDKAS AVRAHAM INC: $500 → 28%TZIDKAS AVRAHAM INC: $250 → 28%TZIDKAS AVRAHAM: $150 → 28%TZIDKAS AVRAHAM: $150 → 28%AIM B YISROEL INC: $2k → 14%AIM B YISROEL INC: $2k → 14%TZEDUKAS HUIR: $50 → 14%AIM B YISROEL INC: $1k → 14%BEER MIRIAM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $500 → 20%BEER MIRIAM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $100 → 20%CONG AVIHEM: $4k → 20%CONG AVIHEM: $800 → 20%AVIHUM: $600 → 20%AVIHUM: $600 → 20%AVIHUM: $600 → 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.

78%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 68 repeat orgs$350k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +19% since the first grant, against +0% for those funded once.

68 repeat relationships: 40 still active in FY2025, 28 since wound down; 29 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

68
217

Total granted

$1.3M
$299k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+19%
+0%

Still filing today

13%
4%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $51k 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 ServicesReligionInternationalPhilanthropyHousing & ShelterEducationOther
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

  • AF
    American Friends Of Chinuch Jerusaleim Inc
    3× · 2023–2025 · $20k · revenue +20%
  • MU
    MIKVAH USA INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $9k · revenue +16%
  • BL
    BAYIS LEPLEITOS - ATERES BONOS INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $9k · revenue +4%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $125k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $10k
  • CL
    CONGREGATION LIZENSK
    one grant, 2022 · $10k
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
Birchas Yaakov Kollel Inc

Maintain communal and charitable affairs in accordance with the tradition of the orthodox jewish faith

—
4
Sherit Isroel
—
5
Bais Yehuda Perach Rochel Foundation
Public Benefit
6
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
7
Zicron Eliyahu Inc
—
8
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
9
Zichron Yaakov Yitzchok Inc
—
10
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
—
11
American Friends of Birchas Mordechai

Raise funds for charitable purposes

Religion
12
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Vaad Harabbanim L'inyanei Tzeduka Inc; the most unlike its peers is Gemilas Chasadim 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

22 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. 22 of the 315 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)
20/22
Grantees still filing
15/22
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DETAILS OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST: $613,432 · OtherDETAILS OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS AVAILABLE UPON REQUESTIndividual grant recipient: $125,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientcong Minchus Chinch: $102,000 · Othercong Minchus ChinchCONGREGATION TOLDOS AHARON: $82,479 · OtherCHAIM VCHESED DRIBNITZ: $61,220 · Othercong Minchas Yuir: $53,500 · OtherCONG NOAM ELIMELECH LIZENSK: $51,650 · Other+179 more: $458,951 · Other+179 moreTZIDKAS AVRAHAM INC: $6,630 · Human ServicesAVIHEM INC: $6,300 · Human ServicesAIM B YISROEL INC: $5,505 · Human Services+1 more: $600 · Human ServicesBAYIS LEPLEITOS - ATERES BONOS INC: $8,800 · InternationalAMERICAN FRIENDS OF BNEI AKIVA YESHIVOT IN ISRAEL INC: $1,000 · International+1 more: $245 · InternationalMIKVAH USA INC: $9,172 · ReligionAISHES CHAYIL D'KIRYAS JOEL: $3,380 · Housing & ShelterDONORS FUND INC: $850 · PhilanthropyBEIS YOSEF CHAIM INC: $610 · PhilanthropyGEMILAS CHASADIM INC: $500 · PhilanthropyBIKUR CHOLIM INC: $400 · HealthYESHIVAT AISH HATORAH: $220 · Education
Other$1,548,232Human Services$19,035International$10,045Religion$9,172Housing & Shelter$3,380Philanthropy$1,960Health$400Education$220

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%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAmerican Friends Of Chinuch Jerusaleim Inc: $20,100 over 3y, 3.1% of budgetMIKVAH USA INC: $9,172 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetBAYIS LEPLEITOS - ATERES BONOS INC: $8,800 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTZIDKAS AVRAHAM INC: $6,630 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetAVIHEM INC: $6,300 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetAIM B YISROEL INC: $5,505 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetAISHES CHAYIL D'KIRYAS JOEL: $3,380 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF BNEI AKIVA YESHIVOT IN ISRAEL INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDONORS FUND INC: $850 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBEIS YOSEF CHAIM INC: $610 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBEER MIRIAM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $600 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetGEMILAS CHASADIM INC: $500 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetBIKUR CHOLIM INC: $400 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKOLEL CHIBAS JERUSALEM: $245 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYESHIVAT AISH HATORAH: $220 over 2y, 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 American Friends Of Chinuch Jerusaleim Inc ↗
  • Who funds MIKVAH USA INC ↗
  • Who funds BAYIS LEPLEITOS - ATERES BONOS INC ↗
  • Who funds TZIDKAS AVRAHAM INC ↗
  • Who funds AVIHEM INC ↗
  • Who funds AIM B YISROEL 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 FundNY76.7× affinity81 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 · American Friends of Bnai Levy Foundation · Keren Ish Foundation · Strulovich Family Foundation Trust · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · Blum Foundation · Zelig and Rifky Weiss Family Foundation Inc · Kanfei Yoneh Foundation · Hps Foundation · Bochner 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 I&S Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from I&S Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to I&S Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to I&S Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 315 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 I&S’ filings →

    More from the funding graph