Skip to content
Joseph & Rachel Charity Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Joseph & Rachel Charity 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.

$175k
Granted FY2024still arriving
15
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$85k
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, FY2022 to 2024.

Religion$346kHealth$104kInternational$60kHuman Services$5k
02FY2024 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k12 grants · $16k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $74k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $85k
$1,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$225
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONG YESHIVA YAD MOISHE$85,000
CONG BAIS YAAKOV NECHAMIA DASATMER$40,000
ANENI WE ANSWER$34,000
CHONEN VNOSEN$4,000
Individual grant recipient$3,600
Individual grant recipient$2,000
Individual grant recipient$1,800
CONG MEOR EIYNAYIM$1,000
VCHESED CHASDEI AHARON MIFAL TZE$1,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
Individual grant recipient$500
CONG KEREN MUGIEN IMOSHEYA$500
YESHIVAH TORAS CHESED$360
YESHIVA OF NITRA$360
Individual grant recipient$210
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY22–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 98% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%CONG MEOR EIYNAYIM: $7k → 6%SHIUREY TORAH LUBAVITCH TORAH: $19k → 14%UTA MESIVTA OF KJ: $25k → 14%CONG ANSHI ELLENVILLE: $4k → 16%CONG BAIS YAAKOV NECHAMIA DASATMER: $40k → 20%CONGREGATION PIRCHEI SHOSHANIM: $4k → 11%CONG OVDEI HASHEM NEWARK SHUL: $5k → 16%CONG MEOR EIYNAYIM: $1k → 6%CONG CHASDI ELIEZER: $5k → 14%REFUAH HELP LINE: $2k → 14%CONG BAIS YAAKOV NECHAMIADA SATMER: $10k → 20%BAIS VAAD: $3k → 11%NEWARK SYNAGOGUE: $4k → 16%CONG CHASDI ELIEZER: $3k → 14%CONG OHEL SHLOMA DOV: $18k → 20%CONG KEREN YASOMIM: $3k → 14%CONG OHEL SHLOMA DOV: $4k → 20%CONGREGATION BETH JOEL: $10k → 20%AGUDAS TOV VCHESED INC: $60k → 14%CHAYIM VCHESED INC: $5k → 20%M&S KOLEL: $5k → 14%EZRAS TALMUD CHIAM: $4k → 20%GMACH KEREN SHMEIL: $2k → 20%CONG MESIVTA: $2k → 20%CONG BAIS ELIEZER: $2k → 20%CONG YAD LACHMU ANYU: $1k → 20%CONG ADAS YERYIM: $1k → 20%CONG YAD LACHMU ANYU: $500 → 20%YAKKOV WEISSMANDEL: $500 → 20%ANENI WE ANSWER: $39k → 20%ANENI WE ANSWER: $34k → 20%ANENI WE ANSWER: $29k → 20%CHONEN VNOSEN: $25k → 20%CHONEN VNOSEN: $4k → 20%CONG BINYAN YERISHULYIM: $19k → 20%CONG CHONEN VANOSEN: $2k → 20%CONG KHAL TORAS CHIAM: $11k → 20%CHONEN VNOSEN: $2k → 20%CONG MISHKAN YECHEZKEL: $2k → 20%YESHIVA BETH HILLEL: $500 → 20%VCHESED CHASDEI AHARON MIFAL TZE: $1k → 20%CONG YESHIVA YAD MOISHE: $85k → 20%NAIMOS YISOREL: $5k → 20%CONGREGATION CHINO VCISDA: $3k → 20%DEVORACH ACKERMAN: $2k → 20%CONG DEVORAHACKERMAN: $2k → 20%RABBI SHULEM KLEIN: $500 → 20%CONG KEREN YESOMIM: $2k → 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.

43%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$221k · 7 repeat orgs$294k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
27

Total granted

$221k
$198k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-52%
+20%

Still filing today

14%
11%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 45% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $96k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
HealthReligionInternationalOther
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

  • AW
    ANENI WE ANSWER INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $102k · revenue -52%
  • CB
    CONG BAIS YAAKOV NECHAMIA DASATMER
    2× · 2022–2024 · $50k
  • CV
    CHONEN VNOSEN
    3× · 2022–2024 · $30k

Funded once

  • AT
    AGUDAS TOV V'CHESED INC
    one grant, 2022 · $60k · revenue +18%
  • UM
    UTA MESIVTA OF KJ
    one grant, 2022 · $25k
  • ST
    SHIUREY TORAH LUBAVITCH TORAH
    one grant, 2022 · $19k
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
04the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 45 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
3/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONG YESHIVA YAD MOISHE: $85,000 · OtherCONG YESHIVA YAD MOISHECONG BAIS YAAKOV NECHAMIA DASATMER: $50,000 · OtherCONG BAIS YAAKOV NECHAMIA DASATMERCHONEN VNOSEN: $30,200 · OtherCHONEN VNOSENUTA MESIVTA OF KJ: $25,000 · OtherUTA MESIVTA OF KJCONG OHEL SHLOMA DOV: $21,600 · OtherCONG OHEL SHLOMA DOVSHIUREY TORAH LUBAVITCH TORAH: $18,937 · OtherSHIUREY TORAH LUBAVITCH TORAHIndividual grant recipient: $18,566 · OtherIndividual grant recipient+33 more: $96,730 · Other+33 moreANENI WE ANSWER INC: $101,700 · HealthANENI WE ANSWER INC+1 more: $2,000 · HealthAGUDAS TOV V'CHESED INC: $60,000 · InternationalAGUDAS TOV V'…CHAYIM V CHESED: $5,000 · ReligionYESHIVAS TORAS CHESED: $360 · Religion
Other$346,033Health$103,700International$60,000Religion$5,360

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetANENI WE ANSWER INC: $101,700 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetAGUDAS TOV V'CHESED INC: $60,000 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetCHAYIM V CHESED: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetREFUAH HELPLINE INCDBA REFUAH RESOURCES: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetYESHIVAS TORAS CHESED: $360 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 ANENI WE ANSWER INC ↗
  • Who funds AGUDAS TOV V'CHESED INC ↗
  • Who funds CHAYIM V CHESED ↗
  • Who funds REFUAH HELPLINE INCDBA REFUAH RESOURCES ↗

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 FundFidelity Investments …
The Ojc FundNY16.6× affinity6 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Joseph & Rachel Charity Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Joseph & Rachel Charity Foundation Inc. 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
    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 Joseph & Rachel Charity Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Joseph & Rachel Charity 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 45 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 Joseph & Rachel Charity’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