Skip to content
J & E Wolf Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

J & E Wolf Foundation Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$198k
Granted FY2024still arriving
69
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$108k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Religion$640kHealth$4kHuman Services$2kPublic Benefit$800Food & Nutrition$460Philanthropy$254International$200Education$180Other$0
02FY2024 · 69 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

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
RecipientAmount
Cong Minchas Yehudah$108,075
Cong Shaar Hamelech$31,650
Mevakshe Hashem$14,155
Individual grant recipient$5,375
Mikvah USA$5,000
Bais Yakov$4,345
Individual grant recipient$4,125
Individual grant recipient$2,640
Mevakshe Torah$1,980
Cong Divrei Chaim$1,800
Individual grant recipient$1,800
Rosenblum Fund$1,440
Individual grant recipient$1,400
Lehisaneg$1,180
Yeshiva of Kings Bay Spiritual Enhancement$1,000
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 (FY17–24, $4k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 88% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Lev Yisroel: $100 → 6%CHAIM LECHAG: $360 → 9%CHICAGO CHESED FUND: $100 → 14%Keren Hatzedakah: $860 → 11%Keren Hatzedakah: $10 → 11%MY EXTENDED FAMILY: $50 → 20%My Extended Family: $36 → 20%TIKVASEINU: $36 → 14%A Time: $308 → 20%A Time: $234 → 20%BONEI OLAM: $180 → 20%kimpaturin Aid: $136 → 20%AVIHEM: $100 → 20%MISASSKIM: $300 → 20%BONEI OLAM: $216 → 20%Bonei Olam: $180 → 20%Bonei Olam: $136 → 20%BONEI OLAM: $118 → 20%ASHREINU: $55 → 20%Bonei Olam: $100 → 20%KIMPATURIN 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.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
NY
OH
NJ
CA
VA
MD
GA
TX
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.

65%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$418k · 65 repeat orgs$230k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +49% since the first grant, against +21% for those funded once.

65 repeat relationships: 36 still active in FY2024, 29 since wound down; 33 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

65
172

Total granted

$418k
$206k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+49%
+21%

Still filing today

15%
11%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $24k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesHealthInternationalEducationReligionFood & NutritionOther
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

  • BO
    Bonei Olam Inc
    6× · 2019–2024 · $930 · revenue +160%
  • KH
    KEREN HATZEDAKA INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $870 · revenue +10%
  • VI
    VYAZREIM INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $800 · revenue +29%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2019 · $60k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $41k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $32k
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
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
2
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
3
Mishken Chaim Rivnits

Assistance to the indigent

Religion
4
Shaarei Halacha Inc
Philanthropy
5
Zichron Meshilem Feish Inc

Provides finacial assistance to needy individuals and to religious, charitable organizations

—
6
Avodat Avraham Inc
Religion
7
Hayashar Vehatov Inc

The furtherance of primacy of orthodox jewish jurisprudence

Religion
8
Lev Chabad Inc

To support religious outreach by providing support to lev chabad in israel and other organizations

Health
9
Chasdei Yetev Lev Inc

Provide financial assistance to needy individuals, and to religious, educational, and charitable organizations in us and abroad.

—
10
Ezreinu Inc
Health
11
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
12
Zicron Eliyahu Inc
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Lev Leyeled Inc; the most unlike its peers is Tzedakah Vchesed 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

35 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. 35 of the 270 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)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
32/35
Grantees still filing
23/35
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Cong Minchas Yehudah: $128,145 · OtherCong Minchas YehudahCONG MINCHAS YEHUDA: $73,925 · OtherCONG MINCHAS YEHUDAMAAYON YISROEL INC: $66,980 · OtherMAAYON YISROEL INCIndividual grant recipient: $59,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $40,892 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCONG SHAAR HAMELECH INC: $36,680 · OtherCONG SHAAR HAMELECH INCIndividual grant recipient: $31,500 · Other+175 more: $194,716 · Other+175 moreMIKVAH USA INC: $5,000 · Religion+1 more: $100 · ReligionBonei Olam Inc: $930 · Human ServicesKEREN HATZEDAKA INC: $870 · Human ServicesA Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange: $542 · Human ServicesCHAIM LECHAG INC: $360 · Human ServicesMISASKIM CORP: $300 · Human ServicesKIMPATORIN AID INC: $208 · Human ServicesREFUAH HELPLINE INCDBA REFUAH RESOURCES: $566 · HealthCHAI LIFELINE INC: $180 · HealthKAPAYIM INC: $165 · HealthSPARKS PPD INC: $100 · HealthVYAZREIM INC: $800 · Public BenefitAM YISRAEL CHAI FOUNDATION INC: $180 · EducationCATSKILLS HATZALAH INC: $180 · EducationBNOS BRACHA INC: $100 · EducationTZEDAKAH VCHESED INC: $180 · InternationalEZER MIZION: $161 · International
Other$632,338Religion$5,100Human Services$3,210Health$1,011Public Benefit$800Education$460International$341

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$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMIKVAH USA INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBonei Olam Inc: $930 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetKEREN HATZEDAKA INC: $870 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetVYAZREIM INC: $800 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetREFUAH HELPLINE INCDBA REFUAH RESOURCES: $566 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetA Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange: $542 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetALUMNI OF THE RABBINICAL COLLEGE KNESSETH ISRAEL OF SLABODKA KOWNA: $460 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCHAIM LECHAG INC: $360 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMISASKIM CORP: $300 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSHARE OF NEW SQUARE INC DBA CHESED 247: $280 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetKIMPATORIN AID INC: $208 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetQUALITY OF LIFE INC: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAM YISRAEL CHAI FOUNDATION INC: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCATSKILLS HATZALAH INC: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTZEDAKAH VCHESED INC: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKAPAYIM INC: $165 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetEZER MIZION: $161 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetBNOS BRACHA INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBATSHEVA LEARNING CENTER INC: $100 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSPARKS PPD INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetL OLAM CHASDO INC: $100 over 1y, 0.1% 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 MIKVAH USA 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 FundChaim Maleh FoundationGreenzweig Family Fou…The Lexicon Foundatio…Zichron Chaim Charity…The Ohr Yitzchok Fami…The Strasbourg Founda…The Foundation for Ho…M & M Fischer Foundat…Jack Adjmi Family Fou…Birchas Mordechai Cha…Eisenberg Family Foun…
The Ojc FundNY70.6× affinity57 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 · Greenzweig Family Foundation · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · Zichron Chaim Charity Fund · The Ohr Yitzchok Family Foundation · The Strasbourg Foundation · The Foundation for Hope · M & M Fischer Foundation · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Birchas Mordechai Charitable Foundation · Eisenberg Family Foundation Inc

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 J & E Wolf Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from J & E Wolf Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 9%
  • Bnos Bracha Inc: 9% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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 J & E Wolf Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to J & E Wolf 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 270 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on J & E Wolf’s 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