Skip to content
Mfk Charitable Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Mfk Charitable Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$146k
Granted FY2018
25
Grants FY2018
2
States reached
$23k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0179% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$204kHealth$12kFood & Nutrition$500Other$0
02FY2018 · 25 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2018

  • Under $10k18 grants · $36k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $111k
$2,080
Median grant
2
States reached
$737k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
KOLLEL AVREICHIM OF BROOKLYN$23,400
CONG KEREN ATERES YISOCHER DOV$21,000
CONG TOLDOS JAKOV JOSEF$17,800
OHR HACHAIM HAKADOSH$15,000
SHEKEL HAKODESH INTERNATIONAL$13,600
SMILING SOULS INC$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
CONGREGATION BNEI YAKOV$7,700
CONG LOMDEI KOLLEL BOKER$5,000
MIFAL MAYUNES INC$4,600
MERKAZ JERUSALEM$3,600
CHEVRA OSAI TZODOKOH VCHESED DSATME$3,600
CONG SDEI YAKOV INC$2,080
FRIENDS OF ADERES HATORAH INC$1,800
SHARE OF NEW SQUARE INC$1,800
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, 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%CONGREGATION BNEI YAKOV: $8k → 14%CONGREGATION ANSHEI LAKE FOREST: $1k → 16%CONG BAIS YAAKOV NECHEMIA DSATMER: $100 → 20%FRIENDS OF ADERES HATORAH INC: $2k → 11%CHEVRA OSAI TZDOKOH VCHESED DSATMAR: $5k → 14%CHEVRA KADISHA OF NEW SQUARE: $20k → 20%CHEVRA OSAI TZODOKOH VCHESED DSATME: $4k → 14%SHEKEL HAKODESH INTERNATIONAL: $14k → 20%CONGREGATION DIVREI CHAIM: $250 → 14%CONG KEREN ATERES YISOCHER DOV: $21k → 20%BEER YESHAYE: $10k → 14%CONGREGATION ADAS YEREIM: $500 → 20%OHR HACHAIM HAKADOSH: $15k → 14%CONG KEREN ATERES YISOCHER DOV: $11k → 20%OHR HACHAIM HAKADOSH: $9k → 14%SEE ATTACHED: $476k → 20%MIFAL MAYUNES INC: $5k → 14%SEE ATTACHED: $408k → 20%MIFAL MAYUNES INC: $4k → 14%SEE ATTACHED: $380k → 20%MERKAZ JERUSALEM: $4k → 14%SEE ATTACHED: $319k → 20%CONG SDEI YAKOV INC: $2k → 14%SEE ATTACHED: $306k → 20%CONG SDEI YAKOV INC: $2k → 14%SEE ATTACHED: $269k → 20%SHARE OF NEW SQUARE INC: $2k → 14%KOLLEL AVREICHIM OF BROOKLYN: $24k → 20%KOLLEL AVREICHIM OF BROOKLYN: $23k → 20%SMILING SOULS INC: $10k → 20%MOSDOS CHASIDEI SQUARE: $5k → 20%CONGREGATION PANIM MEIROT: $1k → 20%MOSDOS CHASIDEI SQUARE: $1k → 20%CONG TOLDOS JAKOV JOSEF: $18k → 20%CONG TOLDOS AVROHOM YITZCHOK: $1k → 20%CONG TOLDOS JAKOV JOSEF: $5k → 20%KAPYAYIM INC: $500 → 20%CONG LOMDEI KOLLEL BOKER: $5k → 20%TOMCHE SHABBOS OF BORO PARK AND FLA: $500 → 20%CONGREGATION ORACH CHAIM YOTSEI UKR: $1k → 20%CATSKILLS HATZALAH: $500 → 20%CONG OHEL TORAH: $100 → 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.

66%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$153k · 8 repeat orgs$80k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2018, 0 since wound down; 17 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
3

Total granted

$153k
$22k

Still filing today

25%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2018, 60% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $58k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18
ReligionFood & NutritionHealthPhilanthropyEducationOther
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

  • KA
    KOLLEL AVREICHIM OF BROOKLYN
    2× · 2017–2018 · $48k
  • CK
    CONG KEREN ATERES YISOCHER DOV DZABLITOV
    2× · 2017–2018 · $32k
  • OH
    OHR HACHAIM HAKADOSH
    2× · 2017–2018 · $24k · revenue -11%

Funded once

  • CK
    CHEVRA KADISHA OF NEW SQUARE
    one grant, 2017 · $20k
  • CT
    CONG TOLDOS AVROHOM YITZCHOK
    one grant, 2017 · $1k
  • CP
    CONGREGATION PANIM MEIROTH
    one grant, 2017 · $1k
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

7 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. 7 of the 28 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/7
Grantees still filing
5/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

KOLLEL AVREICHIM OF BROOKLYN: $47,800 · OtherKOLLEL AVREICHIM OF BROOKLYNCONG KEREN ATERES YISOCHER DOV DZABLITOV: $31,500 · OtherCONG KEREN ATERES YISOCHER DOV DZABLITOVCONG TOLDOS JAKOV JOSEF: $23,160 · OtherCONG TOLDOS JAKOV JOSEFCHEVRA KADISHA OF NEW SQUARE: $20,000 · OtherCHEVRA KADISHA OF NEW SQUARESHEKEL HAKODESH INTERNATIONAL: $13,600 · OtherSHEKEL HAKODESH INTERNATIONALIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCHEVRA OSAI TZDOKOH VCHESED DSATMAR INC: $9,000 · OtherCONGREGATION BNEI YAKOV: $7,700 · Other+13 more: $23,990 · Other+13 moreOHR HACHAIM HAKADOSH: $23,600 · ReligionOHR HACHAIM HAK…MIFAL MAYUNES INC: $8,200 · ReligionMIFAL MAYUNES I…SMILING SOULS INC: $10,000 · HealthSHARE OF NEW SQUARE INC DBA CHESED 247: $1,800 · Food & NutritionTOMCHE SHABBOS OF BORO PARK AND FLA: $500 · Food & NutritionFRIENDS OF ADERES HATORAH INC: $1,800 · PhilanthropyCATSKILLS HATZALAH INC: $500 · Education
Other$186,750Religion$31,800Health$10,000Food & Nutrition$2,300Philanthropy$1,800Education$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 budgetOHR HACHAIM HAKADOSH: $23,600 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetSMILING SOULS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetMIFAL MAYUNES INC: $8,200 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetSHARE OF NEW SQUARE INC DBA CHESED 247: $1,800 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF ADERES HATORAH INC: $1,800 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCATSKILLS HATZALAH INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTOMCHE SHABBOS OF BORO PARK AND FLA: $500 over 1y, 0.1% 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 OHR HACHAIM HAKADOSH ↗
  • Who funds SMILING SOULS INC ↗
  • Who funds MIFAL MAYUNES INC ↗
  • Who funds SHARE OF NEW SQUARE INC DBA CHESED 247 ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF ADERES HATORAH INC ↗
  • Who funds CATSKILLS HATZALAH INC ↗
  • Who funds TOMCHE SHABBOS OF BORO PARK AND FLA ↗

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 FundThe Gds FoundationBreuer Charitable Fou…Vyazreim IncZichron Simcha DsassovJewish Communal FundAni Mamin FoundationChayim V ChesedFidelity Investments …Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
The Ojc FundNY32.6× affinity16 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · The Gds Foundation · Breuer Charitable Foundation Inc · Vyazreim Inc · Zichron Simcha Dsassov · Jewish Communal Fund · Ani Mamin Foundation · Chayim V Chesed · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Mfk Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mfk Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 10%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
    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 · 0–5%
    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 28 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 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $306k of grant expense with no grantee named in the published copy. A private foundation itemizes every grant it makes, so a return carrying none has filed its list as an attachment that the public copy does not include. The figures above are therefore from FY2018, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Mfk’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