Skip to content
Melissa Fishel Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Melissa Fishel Foundation Inc

Its FY2021 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$74
Granted FY2021
1
Grants FY2021
1
States reached
$74
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2021.

Religion$34kHealth$20kArts & Culture$13kInternational$3kEnvironment$2kAnimals$1kOther$0
02FY2021 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$74
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CENTER FOR JEWISH LIFE$74
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 (FY17–21) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 86% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%THE EVELYN ALEXANDER WILDLIFE RESCUE CENTER: $500 → 7%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ISRAEL EZER LETALMID: $1k → 17%ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: $600 → 28%YOUNG AT ART MUSEUM: $1k → 13%CENTER FOR JEWISH LIFE: $74 → 6%CHABAD SYNOGAGUES INC: $5k → 7%THE FUND FOR PARK AVENUE: $1k → 17%CHABAD NORTH HAVEN: $1k → 7%THE FUND FOR PARK AVENUE: $1k → 17%LIFELINE NEW YORK: $550 → 17%THE FRICK COLLECTION: $2k → 17%GLOBAL STRAYS INC: $500 → 17%LINCOLN CENTER CORPORATE FUND: $10k → 17%CONGREGATION EMANU-EL: $5k → 17%SAMUEL WAXMAN CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $9k → 17%CONGREGATION EMANU-EL: $4k → 17%SAMUEL WAXMAN CANCER RESEARCH FUND: $7k → 17%DUBIN BREAST CENTER: $550 → 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.

36%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$26k · 3 repeat orgs$48k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2021, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
15

Total granted

$26k
$48k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-18%
-4%

Still filing today

67%
47%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $74 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21
InternationalAnimalsPhilanthropyEnvironmentArts & CultureHealthOther
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

  • SW
    SAMUEL WAXMAN CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $16k · revenue -18%
  • CE
    CONGREGATION EMANUEL
    2× · 2017–2018 · $9k
  • FF
    FUND FOR PARK AVENUE NEW YORK INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $2k · revenue -25%

Funded once

  • CO
    CHABAD OF PUERTO RICO
    one grant, 2018 · $20k
  • LC
    LINCOLN CENTER CORPORATE FUND
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
  • CS
    CHABAD SYNOGAGUES INC
    one grant, 2017 · $5k
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
The Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Fdn Group

Susan g. komen 's mission is to save lives by meeting the most critical needs in our communities & investing in breakthrough research to prevent & cure breast cancer.

—
2
The Breast Cancer Research Foundation Inc

The mission of the breast cancer research foundation, inc. is to prevent and cure breast cancer by advancing the world's most promising research.

Public Safety & Disaster
3
Foundation for Art and Preservation in Embassies

The Foundation for Art and Preservation in Embassies (FAPE) is dedicated to enhancing the United States' image abroad through American Art. Founded as a public-private, non-partisan partnership in 1986, FAPE works with the U.S. Department…

Arts & Culture
4
Victoria and Albert Museum Americas Foundation

The v&a americas foundation is a u.s.-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that supports the victoria and albert museum (v&a) in london. its mission is to promote arts, design, and cultural heritage by facilitating philanthropic support…

International
5
Foundation for Research of the New York Academy of Osteopathy Inc
—
6
Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research

The foundation for sarcoidosis research (fsr) is the leading international organization dedicated to finding a cure for sarcoidosis and improving care for sarcoidosis patients through research, education, and support. since its…

Philanthropy
7
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
8
Alcides E Rosaura Diniz Foundation

The mission of the foundation is to raise funds and foster basic and translational research to identify genetic causes of specific cancers, understand how genes contribute to the disease, and use that understanding to help develop better…

—
9
Fauna & Flora International Usa Inc

Our mission is to act to conserve threatened species and ecosystems worldwide, choosing solutions that are sustainable, based on sound science and take into account human needs.

Philanthropy
10
The Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Foundation Inc

Susan g. komen has an unmatched, comprehensive 360-degree approach to fighting breast cancer across all fronts and supporting millions of people in the u.s. and in countries worldwide. we advocate for policies to protect patients, drive…

Health
11
Friends for Animal Rescue Ny Inc

Friends for animal rescue ny, inc. is a nonprofit organization that furthers the interest of animals in the new york state area and improves their quality of life by supporting medical care, enrichment activities, training and…

Animals
12
American Museum of Natural History

The museum's mission statement is: "to discover, interpret, and disseminate - through scientific research and education - knowledge about human cultures, the natural world, and the universe."

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Inc; the most unlike its peers is Young At Art of Broward Inc. 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

10 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. 10 of the 19 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)
9/10
Grantees still filing
3/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHABAD OF PUERTO RICO: $20,000 · OtherCHABAD OF PUERTO RICOSAMUEL WAXMAN CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $15,500 · OtherSAMUEL WAXMAN CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATIONLINCOLN CENTER CORPORATE FUND: $10,000 · OtherLINCOLN CENTER CORPORATE FUNDCONGREGATION EMANUEL: $8,985 · OtherCONGREGATION EMANUELCHABAD SYNOGAGUES INC: $5,250 · OtherCHABAD SYNOGAGUES INC+6 more: $4,869 · Other+6 moreTHE OVARIAN CANCER RESEARCH FUND INC: $2,500 · PhilanthropyFRENCH AMERICAN AID FOR CHILDREN INC: $1,600 · InternationalLIFELINE NEW YORK: $550 · InternationalFUND FOR PARK AVENUE NEW YORK INC: $2,000 · EnvironmentYOUNG AT ART OF BROWARD INC: $1,000 · Arts & CultureEvelyn Alexander Wildlife Rescue Center Inc: $500 · AnimalsGLOBAL STRAYS INC: $500 · AnimalsAmerican Heart Association Inc: $816 · Health
Other$64,604Philanthropy$2,500International$2,150Environment$2,000Arts & Culture$1,000Animals$1,000Health$816

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSAMUEL WAXMAN CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $15,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetTHE OVARIAN CANCER RESEARCH FUND INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFUND FOR PARK AVENUE NEW YORK INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFRENCH AMERICAN AID FOR CHILDREN INC: $1,600 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetThe Frick Collection: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc: $816 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLIFELINE NEW YORK: $550 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetEvelyn Alexander Wildlife Rescue Center Inc: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGLOBAL STRAYS INC: $500 over 1y, 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.

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.

Martin D & Jean Shafi…Amazonsmile Foundation
Martin D & Jean Shafiroff FoundationNY13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Martin D & Jean Shafiroff Foundation · 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 Melissa Fishel Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Melissa Fishel 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
    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 · 0–5%
    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 19 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 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Melissa Fishel’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