Loading…
· Private foundation
J & E WOLF FOUNDATION INC
This foundation does not accept unsolicited requests — it funds preselected organizations.
$198k
Granted FY2024
69
Grants
3
Communities
$108k
Largest
01What you fund
01
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 98% of J & E WOLF FOUNDATION INC’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2018
cong toldoscong toraschaimimreimoshe
2019
yeshiva beisbeis yehudahatzolah boroadas yosefyosef elandacong torastoras chaim
2020
kollel
2021
tzedakahashamayimshlomocong chernobylmesivtaminchas yehudaimrei
2022
tzedakahkhalyeshiva toldosmenachemhatorahmareh yechezkelboro park
2023
brochaaidmevakshebnoshatzalahlevmonsey
2024
khalmosdosmevakshemeorcarechaichesed
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2024 · 69 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k66 grants · $44k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $46k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $108k
$180
Median grant
3
States reached
$315k
Total assets
Largest grants
- Cong Minchas Yehudah$108,075
- Cong Shaar Hamelech$31,650
- Mevakshe Hashem$14,155
- Meor Hachayim$5,375
- Mikvah USA$5,000
- Bais Yakov$4,345
- Shomrei Hadas$4,125
- Hochman Kimcha De'Pischa$2,640
- Mevakshe Torah$1,980
- Cong Divrei Chaim$1,800
- Shefa Chaim$1,800
- Rosenblum Fund$1,440
- Maayan Yisroel$1,400
- Lehisaneg$1,180
- Yeshiva of Kings Bay Spiritual Enhancement$1,000
02The need
04
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
show:
Your human-services grants (FY19–24, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16% — the area typically sits at 11%. 74% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
64%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$409k · 62 repeat orgs$231k to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +274% since the first grant, against +126% for the ones you funded once.
62 repeat relationships — 35 still active in FY2024, 27 since wound down; 34 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
62
181
Total granted
$409k
$207k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+274%
+126%
Still filing today
10%
9%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $24k went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Human ServicesHealthInternationalEducationReligionPublic BenefitOther
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- BOBonei Olam6× · 2019–2024 · $930 · revenue +224%
- VVyazreim2× · 2023–2024 · $800 · revenue +274%
- RHRefuah Helpline3× · 2022–2024 · $566 · revenue +183%
Funded once
- YBYeshiva Beis Yehudaone grant, 2019 · $60k
- CBCong Beer Shmuelone grant, 2023 · $41k
- KMKHAL MEVAKSHEI TORAHone grant, 2022 · $32k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
1
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
2
Lev Chabad Inc
To support religious outreach by providing support to lev chabad in israel and other organizations
Health
3
Chabad Lametayel Inc
encourage and facilitate the observance of traditional orthodox Jewish practices around the world.
—
4
Bikur Cholim of Manhattan Inc
To assist the sick and elderly by providing financial support for medical expenses, hot meals for the invalid home-bound, patient advocacy and support, new mother convalescence, patient family support, overnight accomodations for visiting…
Health
5
Chochmas Lev Inc
To help needy families through other organizations and jewish schools
Philanthropy
6
Zichron Meshilem Feish Inc
Provides finacial assistance to needy individuals and to religious, charitable organizations
—
7
Mifal Tzedaka Vchesed Chasdei Aharo
Provide financial assistance to torah and talmudic scholars, as well as to other needy individuals and other organizations that work to promote these purposes.
Philanthropy
8
Chaverim Israel Family Services Inc
To provide medical support to families in need
Employment
9
Chasudim Rabim Inc
assistance to needy families
Philanthropy
10
Refua Vesimcha Inc
Assist the poor, Infirm, Handicapped and the underprivileged
Arts & Culture
11
Olam Hatzedaka Corp
Provides financial assistance to needy families on a global level which meet the specified qualifications required by organization's bylaws.
Religion
12
Bais Medrash L'avreichem Inc
Grants to religious institutions.
Philanthropy
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chai Lifeline Inc and the most unlike its peers is Ashreinu Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 15 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 11% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
Closures · last 5 years
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 9% of the field you don’t fund.
orgs you fund
0.0%0/63
the rest of the field
9%
2,132/23,430
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
05the grantee network
27 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2024.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
13
Early backer (in before they grew)
25/27
Grantees still filing
22/27
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$630,720Religion$5,100Human Services$1,803Health$1,011Public Benefit$800International$441Education$360
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
The Ojc FundNY61.3× affinity40 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Chaim Maleh Foundation · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · Greenzweig Family Foundation · The Foundation for Hope · Zichron Chaim Charity Fund · The Ohr Yitzchok Family Foundation · M & M Fischer Foundation · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · The Strasbourg Foundation · Eisenberg Family Foundation Inc · Mkz Charity Foundation Inc
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organisation J & E WOLF FOUNDATION INC funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: BATSHEVA LEARNING CENTER.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
high risk
~2 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 5 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
5 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 3.5× since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 812681977 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on BATSHEVA LEARNING CENTER, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 2 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 0% of their budget — diversified.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to J & E Wolf Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to J & E Wolf Foundation Inc through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines