Skip to content
Irwin Saks Charitable Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Irwin Saks Charitable Foundation Inc

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.

$139k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$35k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0191% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$907kPhilanthropy$224kEducation$59kCivil Rights$22kHuman Services$8kInternational$2kAnimals$1kOther$0
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $16k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $123k
$20,065
Median grant
4
States reached
$3.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
KOLLEL ZICHRON MICHEL OF NMB$34,500
VARIOUS NON-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION$29,305
Individual grant recipient$26,800
AHAVAS TORAH CONGREGATION$20,065
JOAN DACHS BAIS YAAKOV$12,200
AGUDATH ISRAEL OF ILLINOIS$6,000
HEICHAL HATORAH$5,000
REBBE APPRECIATION FUND$5,000
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 (FY18–20, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ACHDUS FOUNDATION: $500 → 20%BIKUR CHOLIM OFMIAMI BEACH: $3k → 15%BIKUR CHOLIM OFMIAMI BEACH: $3k → 15%BIKUR CHOLIM OFMIAMI BEACH: $3k → 15%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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 24 repeat orgs$57k to everyone else

24 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 18 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

24
13

Total granted

$1.3M
$46k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-15%
+168%

Still filing today

21%
31%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $11k 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
EducationReligionHuman ServicesOther
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

  • KZ
    KOLLEL ZICHRON MICHEL OF NMB
    8× · 2018–2025 · $236k
  • VN
    VARIOUS NON-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $219k
  • AT
    AHAVAS TORAH CONGREGATION INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $206k

Funded once

  • YT
    YESHIVA TORAS CHAIM
    one grant, 2024 · $9k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $8k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $6k
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
American Friends of Amshinover Yeshiva Jerusalem Inc

Support of religious schools in Israel

International
3
Yeshiva Chayei Olam

Yeshiva chayei olam inc., was established for the purpose of having an orthodox jewish high school. the school teaches talumdic studies, talmudic jurasprudence, orthodox jewish ethics and the old testament. in addition, the school provides…

Education
4
Sherit Isroel
—
5
Yeshiva Keren Hatorah of Passaic- Clifton

To operate a high school offering religious instruction and general studies as well as a post high school program of talmudic studies. the school shall be run under the standards of orthodox jewish law and tradition.

Education
6
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
7
Ohr Yisrael Yeshiva Inc

Ohr Yisrael is a religious institution that provides religious services and instruction to Rabbis and community members.

Religion
8
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

—
9
Kollel Nefesh Hachaim Inc
Education
10
American Friends of Heichal Yerushalayim Inc

The funding of heichal yerushalayim yeshiva(religious shcool) to facilitate and promote judaic studies.

Youth Development
11
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
—
12
Ohr Olam Corp

publish religious books

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Yeshiva Elementary Inc; the most unlike its peers is Bikur Cholim of Miami Beach 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

11 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. 11 of the 39 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)
11/11
Grantees still filing
5/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

KOLLEL ZICHRON MICHEL OF NMB: $235,750 · OtherKOLLEL ZICHRON MICHEL OF NMBVARIOUS NON-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION: $218,862 · OtherVARIOUS NON-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONAHAVAS TORAH CONGREGATION INC: $206,411 · OtherAHAVAS TORAH CONGREGATION INCIndividual grant recipient: $104,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientMIAMI BEACH COMMUNITY KOLLEL INC: $81,532 · OtherMIAMI BEACH COMMUNITY KOLLEL INCYESHIVA TORAS CHAIMTORAS EMES: $72,250 · OtherYESHIVA TORAS CHAIMTORAS EMES+24 more: $353,352 · Other+24 moreAGUDATH ISRAEL OF SOUTH FLORIDA INC: $20,500 · ReligionREBBE APPRECIATION FUND: $10,000 · ReligionAGUDATH ISRAEL OF ILLINOIS: $6,000 · ReligionMEIRA ACADEMY: $20,000 · EducationHEICHAL HATORAH: $5,000 · EducationFRIENDS OF KOLLEL DVAR ELYON INC: $3,600 · Education+1 more: $500 · EducationBIKUR CHOLIM OF MIAMI BEACH INC: $7,500 · Human ServicesACHDUS FOUNDATION INC: $500 · Human Services
Other$1,272,157Religion$36,500Education$29,100Human Services$8,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAGUDATH ISRAEL OF SOUTH FLORIDA INC: $20,500 over 3y, 13% of budgetMEIRA ACADEMY: $20,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetREBBE APPRECIATION FUND: $10,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetBIKUR CHOLIM OF MIAMI BEACH INC: $7,500 over 3y, 3.0% of budgetHEICHAL HATORAH: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF KOLLEL DVAR ELYON INC: $3,600 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetYAD YISROEL: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetYESHIVA ELEMENTARY INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR DAYANIM: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetACHDUS FOUNDATION INC: $500 over 1y, 0.6% 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 AGUDATH ISRAEL OF SOUTH FLORIDA INC ↗
  • Who funds MEIRA ACADEMY ↗
  • Who funds REBBE APPRECIATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds BIKUR CHOLIM OF MIAMI BEACH INC ↗
  • Who funds AGUDATH ISRAEL OF ILLINOIS ↗
  • Who funds HEICHAL HATORAH ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF KOLLEL DVAR ELYON INC ↗
  • Who funds YAD YISROEL ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA ELEMENTARY INC ↗
  • Who funds INSTITUTE FOR DAYANIM ↗
  • Who funds ACHDUS FOUNDATION 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.

Jewish Communal FundThe Ojc FundAlice G Hanson Family…The Russell & Ronalee…Jack Adjmi Family Fou…Gs Donor Advised Phil…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Amazonsmile Foundation
Jewish Communal FundNY24× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · The Ojc Fund · Alice G Hanson Family Foundation · The Russell & Ronalee Galbut Family Foundation Inc · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Irwin Saks Charitable Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Irwin Saks Charitable Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Heichal Hatorah: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get 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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Irwin Saks Charitable Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to Irwin Saks Charitable Foundation Inc 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 39 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 Irwin Saks’ filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home