Skip to content

· Private foundation

Jacob Herzka Charitable Trust Foundation

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.

$515k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$115k
Largest
01What it funds
0178% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$2.1MPhilanthropy$833kEducation$70kHuman Services$46kHealth$20kOther$0
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $33k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $482k
$82,300
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE DONORS FUND$115,000
Congregation Chomas Yehoshua$112,000
YESHIVAS RADIN$111,500
VARIOUS CHARITIES$82,300
EIN OD MILVADO$61,000
CONG ZICHRON YISROEL$17,800
CONG BAIS HALEVY$15,000
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, $26k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%AHAVAS TZEDAKA: $16k → 11%Zichron Matel: $10k → 11%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.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.5M · 16 repeat orgs$790k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +70% since the first grant, against +49% for those funded once.

16 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
25

Total granted

$2.5M
$775k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+70%
+49%

Still filing today

25%
16%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k 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
EducationHuman ServicesReligionHealthPhilanthropyOther
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

  • YO
    YESHIVA ORCHOS CHAIM INC
    3× · 2017–2023 · $39k · revenue +17%
  • KE
    KEREN EZER LNEFESH
    2× · 2019–2020 · $20k · revenue +184%
  • BT
    BAIS TOVA INC
    2× · 2017–2020 · $11k · revenue +70%

Funded once

  • RC
    Rabinical College of Telzstone
    one grant, 2019 · $504k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $23k
  • NH
    NOAM HATALMUD
    one grant, 2018 · $20k
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
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
2
Yeshiva Nesivos Hatorah Inc

Providing jewish and secular education for elementary school aged children.

Education
3
Cheder Toras Zev

Cheder toras zev operates a parochial grade school in lakewood, new jersey.

Education
4
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
5
Yeshivas Toras Zev Inc

The purpose of this organization is to support indigent torah scholars and their families by providing stipends and additional funds at jewish holiday times.

Religion
6
Cheder Shiras Hatorah Inc

Providing jewish and secular education for elementary school aged children.

Education
7
Yeshivat Yagdil Torah Inc

Providing jewish and secular education for elementary school aged children.

Education
8
Yeshivas Ohr Hatorah Inc

Operation of a parochial elementary school, providing education services to students

Education
9
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
10
Toras Imecha Inc

Providing jewish and secular education for elementary and high school aged children.

Education
11
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

—
12
Chevras Shabbos Kodesh Podcast Fellowship
Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Yeshiva Orchos Chaim Inc; the most unlike its peers is Ahavas Torah V'chesed. 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

10 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. 10 of the 43 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/10
Grantees still filing
8/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

VARIOUS CHARITIES: $830,604 · OtherVARIOUS CHARITIESRabinical College of Telzstone: $503,600 · OtherRabinical College of TelzstoneYESHIVATH RADIN: $476,210 · OtherYESHIVATH RADINCONGREGATION ZICHRON YISROEL INC: $317,800 · OtherCONGREGATION ZICHRON YISROEL INCEIN OD MILVADO: $247,385 · OtherEIN OD MILVADOCONGREGATION CHOMAS YEHOSHUA: $247,000 · OtherCONGREGATION CHOMAS YEHOSHUA+27 more: $479,505 · Other+27 moreDONORS FUND INC: $822,825 · PhilanthropyDONORS FUND INC+1 more: $19,800 · PhilanthropyYESHIVA ORCHOS CHAIM INC: $38,500 · EducationORAYSA INC: $18,000 · EducationLAKEWOOD CHEDER SCHOOL INC: $15,500 · EducationBAIS TOVA INC: $10,950 · EducationAHAVAS TZEDAKA INC: $16,000 · Human ServicesZichron Mattel Inc: $10,000 · Human ServicesKEREN EZER LNEFESH: $20,000 · HealthZICHRON ELIYAHU INC: $19,500 · Religion
Other$3,102,104Philanthropy$842,625Education$82,950Human Services$26,000Health$20,000Religion$19,500

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetDONORS FUND INC: $822,825 over 7y, 1.1% of budgetYESHIVA ORCHOS CHAIM INC: $38,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetKEREN EZER LNEFESH: $20,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetZICHRON ELIYAHU INC: $19,500 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetORAYSA INC: $18,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetAHAVAS TZEDAKA INC: $16,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetLAKEWOOD CHEDER SCHOOL INC: $15,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBAIS TOVA INC: $10,950 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetZichron Mattel Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% 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 DONORS FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA ORCHOS CHAIM INC ↗
  • Who funds KEREN EZER LNEFESH ↗
  • Who funds AHAVAS TORAH V'CHESED ↗
  • Who funds ZICHRON ELIYAHU INC ↗
  • Who funds ORAYSA INC ↗
  • Who funds AHAVAS TZEDAKA INC ↗
  • Who funds LAKEWOOD CHEDER SCHOOL INC ↗
  • Who funds BAIS TOVA INC ↗
  • Who funds Zichron Mattel 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 FundNY33.8× affinity17 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Zichron Btz Tzedakah Foundation · Donors Fund Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Regina Goldwasser Foundation · The Sorala Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Erwin & Ruth Zafir Foundation Inc · National Society for Hebrew Day Schools · Trinc It Charity Inc · David Rosenbaum Family 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 Jacob Herzka Charitable Trust Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jacob Herzka Charitable Trust Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 60%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Bais Tova Inc: 7% of income from government
  • Yeshiva Orchos Chaim Inc: 5% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
6get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
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.

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 43 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 Jacob Herzka’s filings →

More from the funding graph