· Private foundation
Ibf 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.
What it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $2,500 |
| CONGREGATION ZICHRON AARON | $1,000 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
Its human-services grants (FY18–18, $500) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
How this is measured
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +126% since the first grant, against +22% for those funded once.
36 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 35 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- YMYESHIVA MAMAR MORDECHAI NADVORNA6× · 2017–2023 · $80k · revenue +272%
- ONOHR NAAVA3× · 2017–2019 · $13k · revenue +79%
- DWDRESSED WITH DIGNITY INC3× · 2017–2019 · $4k · revenue +490%
Funded once
- ATAMERICAN TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTEone grant, 2018 · $250k
- YKYESHIVA KESSER ISRAELone grant, 2018 · $100k
- YTYESHIVA TALMUDICAL ACADEMYone grant, 2018 · $100k
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.
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.
How this is measured
12 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 12 of the 136 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.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
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.
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.
Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · M & M Fischer Foundation · Zichron Chaim Charity Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore · National Society for Hebrew Day Schools · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · J & E Wolf Foundation Inc · Fjc · Kollel Zichron Avrohom Inc · Greenzweig Family Foundation
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization Ibf Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ibf Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
Play a game based on Ibf’s filings →