Skip to content

· Private foundation

Mhh Charitable 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.

$283k
Granted FY2024still arriving
25
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$103k
Largest
01What it funds
0162% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$129kPhilanthropy$103kHealth$8kOther$0
02FY2024 · 25 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k18 grants · $59k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $121k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $103k
$3,600
Median grant
2
States reached
$238k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE OJC FUND$103,000
Individual grant recipient$29,000
CONG SANZK UMID YOMI INC$28,000
YESHIVA OHEL SHAIM D KAALEV INC$28,000
CONG TZEDAKA VUCHESED AMSHINOV$16,000
CONGREGATION NACHLAS MAHARIM D CHAS$10,000
CONGREGATION EMUNAS YISROEL$10,000
Individual grant recipient$8,000
GMACH CHEMED SHLOMO TENKE$8,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
CONGREGATION RACHMISTRIVKA INC$4,120
KEREN AVRAHAM SHMUEL INC$4,000
CONGREGATION ZWEHIL OF MONSEY$3,600
CONG KHAL TORAS CHAIM BP INC$3,300
TZEDAKAH V CHESED INC$3,000
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 20%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%TZEDAKAH V CHESED INC: $3k → 13%CONGREGATION ZWEHIL OF MONSEY: $4k → 14%CONGREGATION ATERES SHLOIME: $3k → 20%KEREN AVRAHAM SHMUEL INC: $4k → 11%MEVAKSHEI HASHEM INC: $2k → 14%YESHIVA OHEL SHAIM D KAALEV INC: $28k → 20%MEVAKSHEI TORAH: $2k → 20%THE OJC FUND: $103k → 20%CONG SANZK UMID YOMI INC: $28k → 20%CONG TZEDAKA VUCHESED AMSHINOV: $16k → 20%CONG KHAL TORAS CHAIM: $9k → 20%GMACH CHEMED SHLOMO TENKE: $8k → 20%BAIS BROCHA: $8k → 20%CONGREGATION RACHMISTRIVKA INC: $4k → 20%CONG KHAL TORAS CHAIM BP INC: $3k → 20%CONGREGATION KHAL CHASIDEI SKWERA I: $3k → 20%VARIOUS CONTRIBUTIONS: $3k → 20%MEOR HATORAH: $2k → 20%CONGREGATIONS MINCHAS YEHUDA: $2k → 20%VARIOUS CONTRIBUTIONS: $1k → 20%CONGREGATION HEICHAL HATEFILAH: $29k → 20%BAIS ROCHEL: $1k → 20%CONGREGATION NACHLAS MAHARIM D CHAS: $10k → 20%VARIOUS CONTRIBUTIONS: $386 → 20%YESHIVA SHAAREI YOSHER: $5k → 20%VARIOUS CONTRIBUTIONS: $75 → 20%SHAAREI YOSHER: $2k → 20%CONGREGATION EMUNAS YISROEL: $10k → 20%CONGREGATION OHR SHRAGA: $1k → 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 field
04the grantee network

3 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. 3 of the 25 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)
3/3
Grantees still filing
2/3
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $29,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCONG SANZK UMID YOMI INC: $28,000 · OtherCONG SANZK UMID YOMI INCYESHIVA OHEL SHAIM D KAALEV INC: $28,000 · OtherYESHIVA OHEL SHAIM D KAALEV INCCONG TZEDAKA VUCHESED AMSHINOV: $16,000 · OtherCONG TZEDAKA VUCHESED AMSHINOVCONG KHAL TORAS CHAIM BP INC: $12,300 · OtherCONG KHAL TORAS CHAIM BP INCCONGREGATION NACHLAS MAHARIM D CHAS: $10,000 · OtherCONGREGATION NACHLAS MAHARIM D CHASCONGREATION EMUNAS YISROEL: $10,000 · OtherCONGREATION EMUNAS YISROELIndividual grant recipient: $8,000 · OtherGMACH CHEMED SHLOMO TENKA: $8,000 · Other+13 more: $34,516 · Other+13 moreTHE OJC FUND: $103,000 · EducationTHE OJC FUNDKEREN AVRAHAM SHMUEL INC WACHMAN: $4,000 · PhilanthropyTZEDAKAH VCHESED INC: $3,000 · International
Other$183,816Education$103,000Philanthropy$4,000International$3,000

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 budgetTHE OJC FUND: $103,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKEREN AVRAHAM SHMUEL INC WACHMAN: $4,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetTZEDAKAH VCHESED INC: $3,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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 THE OJC FUND ↗
  • Who funds KEREN AVRAHAM SHMUEL INC WACHMAN ↗
  • Who funds TZEDAKAH VCHESED 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 FundNY22.8× affinity10 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · 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 Mhh Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mhh Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
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
    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 25 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 Mhh’s filings →

    More from the funding graph