Skip to content

· Private foundation

Jewish Trust

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.

$215k
Granted FY2025still arriving
33
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$110k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2024 to 2025.

Religion$299kEducation$20kYouth Development$3kArts & Culture$1kHousing & Shelter$1kPhilanthropy$950Human Services$653
02FY2025 · 33 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k29 grants · $39k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $66k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $110k
$540
Median grant
5
States reached
$2.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Chabad of Howard Beach$109,980
Howard Beach Judea Center$34,000
Bnos Menachem$19,700
Oholei Torah$12,655
Hebrew Academy$8,821
Individual grant recipient$8,000
American Friends Of Chabad Cabo$3,700
Camp Gan Israel Montreal$2,800
CGI Chai$2,600
Individual grant recipient$1,500
Individual grant recipient$1,500
Jewish Children's Museum$1,000
Friends of Chabad of Hebron Inc$1,000
Cheder Lubavitch Hebrew Day School$1,000
Home Sweet Home$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 (FY24–25, $653) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Ten Yad Kallah Gemach: $349 → 20%Ten Yad Kallah Gemach: $304 → 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.
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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$296k · 14 repeat orgs$30k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 14 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 19 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
16

Total granted

$296k
$11k

Still filing today

21%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $19k went to new ones.

50%100%’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’24’25
ReligionHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentArts & CulturePhilanthropyEducationOther
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

  • CO
    CHABAD OF HOWARD BEACH INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $143k
  • HB
    Howard Beach Judea Center
    2× · 2024–2025 · $46k
  • BM
    BNOS MENACHEM INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $42k

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $3k
  • DM
    DARCHAI MENACHEM INC
    one grant, 2024 · $2k
  • CO
    CHABAD OF N BROWARD BEACHES INC
    one grant, 2024 · $1k
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
Chabad Lametayel Inc

encourage and facilitate the observance of traditional orthodox Jewish practices around the world.

—
2
Shaarei Halacha Inc
Philanthropy
3
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
4
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
5
Chevras Shabbos Kodesh Podcast Fellowship
Religion
6
Chabad Jewish Center of Stamford Inc

servicing the stamford Jewish community with religious and education programs

Food & Nutrition
7
Chesed Aharon
Philanthropy
8
Chabad of Barbados Inc

CHABAD OF BARBADOS INC is an organization dedicated to furthering the religious, educational, and charitable needs of the Jewish Community and /or tourists of Barbados.

Religion
9
Chabad Youth Queens Inc

This organization is formed for the charitable religious purpose of providing Jewish ministry, religious education, aid and support of all kinds to families, youth and persons of all ages in the Jewish community of the New York City area…

Religion
10
Ahavas Torah V'chesed
Philanthropy
11
Rabbi Meir Baal Haness Charity of Jerusalem Inc
Philanthropy
12
The Nochim & Rivka Zeldes Foundation
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cgi Chai Inc; the most unlike its peers is Ab Charity 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

8 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. 8 of the 49 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
2/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHABAD OF HOWARD BEACH INC: $142,980 · OtherCHABAD OF HOWARD BEACH INCHoward Beach Judea Center: $46,000 · OtherHoward Beach Judea CenterBNOS MENACHEM INC: $41,950 · OtherBNOS MENACHEM INCOholei Torah: $25,882 · OtherOholei TorahHebrew Academy: $13,821 · Other+36 more: $48,100 · Other+36 moreCGI CHAI INC: $2,600 · Youth DevelopmentFRIENDS OF CHABAD OF HEBRON INC: $1,000 · ReligionChabad of the Airport Inc: $460 · ReligionCHABAD AT THE MEDICAL CENTERS: $154 · ReligionJEWISH CHILDRENS MUSEUM: $1,000 · Arts & CultureAB CHARITY INC: $950 · PhilanthropyTEN YAD KALLAH GEMACH INC: $653 · Human ServicesMesivta Ahavas Hatorah: $100 · Education
Other$318,733Youth Development$2,600Religion$1,614Arts & Culture$1,000Philanthropy$950Human Services$653Education$100

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 budgetCGI CHAI INC: $2,600 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetJEWISH CHILDRENS MUSEUM: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF CHABAD OF HEBRON INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAB CHARITY INC: $950 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTEN YAD KALLAH GEMACH INC: $653 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetChabad of the Airport Inc: $460 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCHABAD AT THE MEDICAL CENTERS: $154 over 2y, 0.0% 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 CGI CHAI INC ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH CHILDRENS MUSEUM ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF CHABAD OF HEBRON INC ↗
  • Who funds AB CHARITY INC ↗
  • Who funds TEN YAD KALLAH GEMACH INC ↗
  • Who funds Chabad of the Airport 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 FundNY22× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Nash Charity Foundation Inc · Crain-Maling Foundation · Jewish Communal Fund · The Ben-Abou Foundation · Lavie Shterna Popack Family Foundat · Yeled V'Yalda Early Childhood Center Inc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Jewish Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jewish Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report 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.

    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 49 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 Jewish’s filings →

    More from the funding graph