Skip to content

· Private foundation

Kenneth and Agnes Zitter Family 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.

$195k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$63k
Largest
01What it funds
0185% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$992kHuman Services$362kEnvironment$18kHealth$11kInternational$1kEducation$1kOther$0
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $72k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $113k
$18,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$937k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
RABBI ISAAC ELCHANAN THEO$62,500
DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND$50,000
Individual grant recipient$25,000
REFUAH RESOURCES$18,000
Individual grant recipient$15,000
MISCELLANEOUS$13,860
YESHIVAS MIR YERUSHALAYIM$5,200
LAWRENCE FAR ROCKAWAY COMMUN KOLLE$5,000
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 (FY20–24, $362k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 1% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND: $150k → 6%DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND: $100k → 6%DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND: $60k → 6%DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND: $50k → 6%MISASKIM: $500 → 20%SHALOM TASK FORCE: $2k → 17%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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 7 repeat orgs$120k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +136% since the first grant, against +38% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
15

Total granted

$1.3M
$52k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+136%
+38%

Still filing today

29%
27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $68k 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 ServicesInternationalReligionHealthEducationOther
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

  • RI
    RABBI ISAAC ELCHANAN THEO
    8× · 2017–2024 · $888k
  • DM
    DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND INC
    4× · 2020–2024 · $360k · revenue +136%
  • CB
    CONGREGATION BETH SHALOM
    3× · 2019–2021 · $23k

Funded once

  • YO
    YESHIVA OF FAR ROCKAWAY
    one grant, 2019 · $18k
  • YI
    YOUNG ISRAEL OF HOLISWOOD
    one grant, 2023 · $8k
  • DC
    DRS CHARITY FUND
    one grant, 2019 · $7k
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
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
2
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
3
Tal Hashamayim Foundation
Religion
4
Mishken Chaim Rivnits

Assistance to the indigent

Religion
5
American Friends of Yeshivat Nachalat Yossef

The organization will provide financial assistance to educational institutions that promote the observance of the jewish religion, its laws and traditions, and sacred texts, including yeshivat nachalat yossef, located in jerusalem, israel.

Religion
6
Yad Yosef Foundation
Philanthropy
7
Idf Memorial Foundation
Philanthropy
8
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
9
Congregation Beth-El Sephardic Center of Jamaica Estates

Congregation beth-el sephardic center of jamaica estates is a religious institution

Religion
10
Friends of Yeshivas Rashi Inc

The support of a home and school of disadvantaged youth.

Education
11
Zichron Chaim Meir Foundation
Philanthropy
12
Rashbi Tehillim Incorporated
Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of Yeshiva Dmir Inc; the most unlike its peers is Misaskim Corp. 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, 2017–2025.

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. 8 of the 27 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RABBI ISAAC ELCHANAN THEO: $887,500 · OtherRABBI ISAAC ELCHANAN THEO+18 more: $164,130 · Other+18 moreDAVIS MEMORIAL FUND INC: $360,000 · Human ServicesDAVIS MEMORIAL FUND INC+2 more: $2,300 · Human ServicesYESHIVA OF FAR ROCKAWAY: $18,000 · ReligionAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC: $5,200 · InternationalCentral Fund of Israel: $1,000 · InternationalKEREN OR INC: $3,750 · EducationCHAI LIFELINE INC: $250 · Health
Other$1,051,630Human Services$362,300Religion$18,000International$6,200Education$3,750Health$250

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 budgetDAVIS MEMORIAL FUND INC: $360,000 over 4y, 2.7% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC: $5,200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKEREN OR INC: $3,750 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetSHALOM TASK FORCE INC: $1,800 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCentral Fund of Israel: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMISASKIM CORP: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $250 over 1y, 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 DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA OF FAR ROCKAWAY ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC ↗
  • Who funds KEREN OR INC ↗
  • Who funds SHALOM TASK FORCE INC ↗
  • Who funds Central Fund of Israel ↗
  • Who funds MISASKIM CORP ↗
  • Who funds CHAI LIFELINE 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 FundNY12.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile 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 Kenneth and Agnes Zitter Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Kenneth and Agnes Zitter Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%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 · 0–60%
    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.

    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 27 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 Kenneth and Agnes Zitter Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph