Skip to content

· Private foundation

Mandelbaum Family Foundation

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.

$3k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$1k
Largest
01What it funds
0188% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Religion$14kEducation$6kPublic Safety & Disaster$2kHuman Services$360Arts & Culture$275Food & Nutrition$180Health$180Other$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$54k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
YESHIVA OF GREATER WASHINGTON$1,000
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA D'MIR$1,000
YESHIVA GEDOLAH KESSER TORAH$750
HATZALAH OF MICHIGAN$360
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 (FY24–24, $540) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 33% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ISRAEL MEDICAL FUND CORP: $180 → 17%DETROIT CHESED PROJECT: $360 → 8%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.

75%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$18k · 8 repeat orgs$6k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +3% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
9

Total granted

$18k
$6k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+3%
0%

Still filing today

38%
44%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationHuman ServicesInternationalReligionPublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • YG
    YESHIVA GEDOLAH KESSER TORAH
    6× · 2020–2025 · $7k
  • YO
    YESHIVA OF GREATER WASHINGTON INC
    4× · 2021–2025 · $5k · revenue +23%
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC
    3× · 2022–2025 · $2k · revenue +3%

Funded once

  • PD
    PIRCHEI DETROIT
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
  • MB
    MATAN B'SETER OF DETROIT
    one grant, 2021 · $1k
  • HA
    HILLEL ACADEMY OF PITTSBURGH
    one grant, 2023 · $1k · revenue -4%
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
American Friends of Amshinover Yeshiva Jerusalem Inc

Support of religious schools in Israel

International
3
Zohar Hatorah Inc

Religious School

Religion
4
Yeshiva Keter Torah Inc

Providing secular and religious education for elementary and high school aged students

Education
5
Yeshiva Derech Hatorah-Yeshivat Mizrachi Lbanim

A school-section 170(b)(1)(a)(ii), operating from the preschool pre-k level through high school, and chartered ny the new york state education department and board of regents.

Education
6
Sherit Isroel
—
7
Yeshiva Chayei Olam

Yeshiva chayei olam inc., was established for the purpose of having an orthodox jewish high school. the school teaches talumdic studies, talmudic jurasprudence, orthodox jewish ethics and the old testament. in addition, the school provides…

Education
8
Yeshiva Shaar Hatalmud

Providing jewish education to high school age students.

Education
9
Hitmasrut Inc

Jewish educational programs

Religion
10
Mesivta Ohr Yisroel Inc

Parochial secondary school.

Education
11
Yeshiva Zichron Mayir

Educating students in jewish religious studies and prayers.

—
12
Yeshivat Yagdil Torah Inc

Providing jewish and secular education for elementary school aged children.

Education
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 Pirchei Detroit. 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 17 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)
7/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

YESHIVA GEDOLAH KESSER TORAH: $6,550 · OtherYESHIVA GEDOLAH KESSER TORAHPITTSBURGH KOLLEL BETH YITZHOR: $1,180 · OtherPITTSBURGH KOLLEL BETH YITZHORMATAN B'SETER OF DETROIT: $1,000 · OtherMATAN B'SETER OF DETROITIndividual grant recipient: $1,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientYESHIVA OHR SIMCHA OF ENGLEWOOD INC: $500 · OtherCONGREGATION B'NAI JACOB-KOLLEL INST DETROIT: $500 · Other+4 more: $1,175 · Other+4 moreYESHIVA OF GREATER WASHINGTON INC: $4,500 · EducationYESHIVA OF GREATER WASHING…HILLEL ACADEMY OF PITTSBURGH: $1,000 · EducationHILLEL ACADEMY OF PITTSBUR…AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC: $2,200 · InternationalAMERICAN F…PIRCHEI DETROIT: $1,800 · ReligionHATZALAH OF MICHIGAN: $1,720 · Public Safety & DisasterDETROIT CHESED PROJECT: $360 · Human ServicesISRAEL MEDICAL FUND CORP: $180 · Human Services
Other$11,905Education$5,500International$2,200Religion$1,800Public Safety & Disaster$1,720Human Services$540

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 budgetYESHIVA OF GREATER WASHINGTON INC: $4,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC: $2,200 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetHATZALAH OF MICHIGAN: $1,720 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetHILLEL ACADEMY OF PITTSBURGH: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYAD EZRA: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetISRAEL MEDICAL FUND CORP: $180 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 YESHIVA OF GREATER WASHINGTON INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC ↗
  • Who funds PIRCHEI DETROIT ↗
  • Who funds HATZALAH OF MICHIGAN ↗
  • Who funds HILLEL ACADEMY OF PITTSBURGH ↗
  • Who funds DETROIT CHESED PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds YAD EZRA ↗
  • Who funds ISRAEL MEDICAL FUND CORP ↗

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.

Ahavas Avraham FoundationMI15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Ahavas Avraham Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Mandelbaum Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mandelbaum Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Yeshiva of Greater Washington Inc: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
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 17 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 Mandelbaum Family’s filings →

More from the funding graph