Skip to content
Leebling Inc at a glance

· Public charity

Leebling Inc

The organization was formed for the purpose of helping out the people in our community and operating a day care center.

$92k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$16k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0171% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2024.

Religion$80kYouth Development$26kOther$0
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $52,232, the rows itemized in this filing. The $92,129 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $39,897 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $20k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $32k
$6,995
Median grant
1
States reached
$4.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HISACHDIS HATALMIDIM$16,393
CONG BAIS SHMIEL TZVI$15,628
UTA$6,995
TALMUD TORAH OHEL YOCHENEN$6,765
CONG MORDCHA$6,451
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 (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%CONG BAIS SHMIEL TZVI: $16k → 14%YEODED: $20k → 20%HISACHDIS HATALMIDIM: $16k → 20%HISACHDIS HATALMIDIM: $12k → 20%UTA: $11k → 20%CONG KHAL TORATH CHAIM VIZNITZ OF B: $9k → 20%CONG SHEARIS MENACHEM: $8k → 20%UTA: $8k → 20%UTA: $7k → 20%YEODED: $7k → 20%CONG MORDCHA: $6k → 20%UTA: $6k → 20%YESHIVA MACHZIKEI HADAAS: $6k → 20%TALMUD TORAH OHEL YOCHENEN: $7k → 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.

63%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$87k · 3 repeat orgs$52k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
3

Total granted

$87k
$23k

Still filing today

33%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 45% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $29k went to new ones.

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

  • UT
    UNITED TALMUDICAL ACADEMY OF BORO PARK
    4× · 2021–2024 · $32k
  • HH
    HISACHDIS HATALMIDIM DKEREN SHMIEL
    2× · 2023–2024 · $28k
  • YI
    YEODED INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $26k · revenue +26%

Funded once

  • CK
    CONG KHAL TORATH CHAIM VIZNITZ OF BP
    one grant, 2019 · $9k
  • CS
    CONGREGATION SHEARIS MENACHEM DVISHEVE
    one grant, 2019 · $8k
  • YM
    YESHIVA MACHZIKEI HADAS
    one grant, 2021 · $6k
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

1 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2019–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2019 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 1 of the 9 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)
1/1
Grantees still filing
1/1
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNITED TALMUDICAL ACADEMY OF BORO PARK: $32,147 · OtherUNITED TALMUDICAL ACADEMY OF BORO PARKHISACHDIS HATALMIDIM DKEREN SHMIEL: $28,393 · OtherHISACHDIS HATALMIDIM DKEREN SHMIELCONGREGATION BAIS SHMIEL TZVI: $15,628 · OtherCONGREGATION BAIS SHMIEL TZVICONG KHAL TORATH CHAIM VIZNITZ OF BP: $8,928 · OtherCONG KHAL TORATH CHAIM VIZNITZ OF BPCONGREGATION SHEARIS MENACHEM DVISHEVE: $8,455 · OtherCONGREGATION SHEARIS MENACHEM DVISHEVETALMUD TORAH OHEL YOCHANAN: $6,765 · OtherTALMUD TORAH OHEL YOCHANANCONGREGATION BAIS MORDECHAI INC: $6,451 · OtherCONGREGATION BAIS MORDECHAI INCYESHIVA MACHZIKEI HADAS: $5,780 · OtherYEODED INC: $26,400 · Youth DevelopmentYEODED INC
Other$112,547Youth Development$26,400

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetYEODED INC: $26,400 over 2y, 0.5% 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 YEODED 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 FundAmerican Friends of B…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…
The Ojc FundNY23.5× affinity10 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · American Friends of Bnai Levy Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Leebling Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Leebling Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
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, FY20–24
    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 9 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $106k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Leebling’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