Skip to content
Mayer Handler Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Mayer Handler 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.

$46k
Granted FY2024still arriving
16
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0155% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Religion$335kHuman Services$17kArts & Culture$11kInternational$2kPublic Safety & Disaster$500Other$0
02FY2024 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 16 grants below total $43,388, the rows itemized in this filing. The $46,268 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $2,880 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 $10k15 grants · $33k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$2,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$503k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Chonen Vnosen$10,000
CONGREGATION YL SOUTH 8$5,365
Individual grant recipient$5,000
BETH PINCHAS$5,000
Maalah Inc$4,773
YESHIVA BETH JOSEPH$3,000
BEIRACH MOSHE SKILLMAN INC$2,500
OHR CHODOSH$2,000
Congregation Ohr Yehoshua$1,000
KEREN MELAMDIM DSATMAR INC$1,000
Cong Khal Yereim Yesh Bais Hillel$1,000
Individual grant recipient$750
BINYAN YERUSHLAIM$500
CONG ACHIEZER$500
Individual grant recipient$500
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 (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%Chasdai Chaim Zanvil: $7k → 14%Sheri Torah Inc: $10k → 14%KEREN VEZER INC: $20k → 20%Chasdai Chaim Zanvil: $7k → 14%KEREN VEZER INC: $13k → 20%KEREN VEZER INC: $10k → 20%KEREN VEZER INC: $10k → 20%BEIRACH MOSHE SKILLMAN INC: $8k → 20%hychel hatorah: $8k → 20%CYL: $50k → 20%Chonen Vnosen: $34k → 20%Cong Yazorei: $30k → 20%GEMILAS CHASUDIM KEREN ELUZER INC: $25k → 20%Chonen Vnosen: $21k → 20%cong mordechai tzvi: $20k → 20%Chonen Vnosen: $17k → 20%Chonen Vnosen: $13k → 20%Cong Binyan Yaakov: $12k → 20%Chonen Vnosen: $12k → 20%CKYK: $11k → 20%Chaim Vchesed: $11k → 20%Congregation Paile Yoetz: $11k → 20%Chayim Vchesed Inc: $10k → 20%CONGREGATION ADAS YEREIM: $10k → 20%Chonen Vnosen: $10k → 20%Chayim Vchesed Inc: $7k → 20%TZEDOKA V CHESED: $6k → 20%Kollel Yetev Lev: $6k → 20%Beth Pinchus: $5k → 20%Elef Hamugen: $5k → 20%Congregation Paile Yoetz: $5k → 20%BETH PINCHAS: $5k → 20%TZEDOKA V CHESED: $5k → 20%Elef Hamugen: $5k → 20%Cong Bnie Moshe: $5k → 20%Elef Hamugen: $5k → 20%KHAL OHR ELIEZER: $8k → 20%OHR CHODOSH: $6k → 20%Ezer Yeshiva: $10k → 20%Mareh Yechezkal: $60k → 20%Tzduka Vchesed: $10k → 20%Tzduka Vchesed: $6k → 20%CONGREGATION OHR YISROEL INC: $11k → 20%CONGREGATION CHAIM VACHESED: $10k → 20%CONGREGATION CHAIM VACHESED: $10k → 20%CONGREGATION RAV CHASED: $10k → 20%CONGREGATION YL SOUTH 8: $5k → 20%YESHIVA GEDOLEH OHR YISROEL: $5k → 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.

57%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$388k · 22 repeat orgs$289k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +84% since the first grant, against -41% for those funded once.

22 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2024, 12 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

22
33

Total granted

$388k
$269k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+84%
-41%

Still filing today

5%
3%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 54% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
ReligionEducationPublic 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

  • CV
    CHONEN VNOSEN
    6× · 2019–2024 · $106k
  • KV
    KEREN VEZER INC KEREN EZER
    4× · 2019–2022 · $53k
  • C
    CYL
    4× · 2019–2022 · $51k

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $60k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2019–2020 · $30k
  • GC
    GEMILAS CHASUDIM KEREN ELUZER INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $25k
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

4 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. 4 of the 61 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)
3/4
Grantees still filing
2/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHONEN VNOSEN: $106,400 · OtherCHONEN VNOSENIndividual grant recipient: $60,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientKEREN VEZER INC KEREN EZER: $53,000 · OtherKEREN VEZER INC KEREN EZERCYL: $51,000 · OtherCYLIndividual grant recipient: $30,000 · OtherGEMILAS CHASUDIM KEREN ELUZER INC: $25,000 · Other+51 more: $332,482 · Other+51 moreCHAYIM V CHESED: $17,000 · ReligionKEREN MELAMDIM DSATMAR INC: $1,000 · ReligionOHR HAMAIER INC: $1,500 · EducationHATZOLAH OF WILLIAMSBURG INC: $500 · Public Safety & Disaster
Other$657,882Religion$18,000Education$1,500Public Safety & Disaster$500

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 budgetCHAYIM V CHESED: $17,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetOHR HAMAIER INC: $1,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetKEREN MELAMDIM DSATMAR INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHATZOLAH OF WILLIAMSBURG INC: $500 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 CHAYIM V CHESED ↗

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…Zelig and Rifky Weiss…The Lexicon Foundatio…Jack Adjmi Family Fou…Asm Family Charitable…Kanfei Yoneh Foundati…Nimlach FoundationBlum FoundationThe Schwartz Charitab…I&S FoundationBochner Foundation
The Ojc FundNY43.6× affinity24 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · American Friends of Bnai Levy Foundation · Zelig and Rifky Weiss Family Foundation Inc · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Asm Family Charitable Foundation Trust · Kanfei Yoneh Foundation · Nimlach Foundation · Blum Foundation · The Schwartz Charitable Foundation Inc · I&S Foundation · Bochner 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 Mayer Handler Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mayer Handler Foundation. 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
    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 · 0–5%
    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 61 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 Mayer Handler’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