Skip to content
Morris and Esther Ades Foundation Co Morris Ades - S&A Stores Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Morris and Esther Ades Foundation Co Morris Ades - S&A Stores Inc

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.

$130k
Granted FY2024still arriving
18
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$75k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Religion$299kYouth Development$36kHealth$33kHuman Services$16kFood & Nutrition$15kEducation$10kPhilanthropy$4kPublic Safety & Disaster$1kOther$0
02FY2024 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k15 grants · $33k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $22k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $75k
$2,600
Median grant
2
States reached
$39k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONGREGATION OF MAGEN DAVID OF WEST$75,000
LARCHWOOD SYNAGOGUE$11,800
Individual grant recipient$10,000
Individual grant recipient$6,000
RENEWAL$3,600
Individual grant recipient$3,600
SEPHARDIC BIKUR HOLIM$3,000
SEPHARDIC FOOD FUND$2,600
MORRIS FRANCO CANCER CENTER$2,600
DSN COMMUNITY CENTER$2,600
HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY$2,000
MAGEN DAVID YESHIVA$1,800
SHEHEBAR SEPHARDIC CENTER$1,800
LUNG CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION$1,018
SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY CENTER$1,002
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 (FY20–22, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 88% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%ISRAEL MEDICAL FUND: $500 → 17%SPECIAL CHILDRENS CENTER: $1k → 11%SEPHARDIC BIKUR HOLIM: $4k → 20%SEPHARDIC BIKUR HOLIM: $3k → 20%MISAS KIM: $200 → 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.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$350k · 30 repeat orgs$63k to everyone else

30 repeat relationships: 16 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

30
26

Total granted

$350k
$59k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+5%
+5%

Still filing today

23%
27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
HealthHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentPhilanthropyFood & NutritionEducationOther
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

  • DS
    DEAL SEPHARDIC YOUTH CENTER INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $36k · revenue +134%
  • TS
    THE SEPHARDIC FOOD FUND INC
    3× · 2020–2024 · $15k · revenue +5%
  • TB
    THE BRIDGE ACADEMY INC
    4× · 2020–2023 · $8k · revenue +2%

Funded once

  • LM
    LUNG MAGEN DAVID OF W DEAL
    one grant, 2022 · $20k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $6k
  • EJ
    EDMOND J SAFRA SYNAGOGUE
    one grant, 2023 · $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
Zichron Chaim Meir Foundation
Philanthropy
2
The Chasdei Shimon Foundation
Religion
3
Zichron Chaim Avraham Foundation
Philanthropy
4
Chaim Maleh Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Tal Hashamayim Foundation
Religion
6
Bnei Mordechai Charitable Foundation
Philanthropy
7
Tzemach Yifroch Foundation
—
8
Zichron Moshe Vesther Kohn Foundation
Philanthropy
9
Chasudim Foundation
—
10
Mashiach Foundation
Arts & Culture
11
The Steinhardt Foundation for Jewish Life Inc
Religion
12
Chasdei Ish Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Special Children Center; the most unlike its peers is Ezra Cornman Bar Mitzvah Foundation. 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

15 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. 15 of the 58 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)
14/15
Grantees still filing
12/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONGREGATION OF MAGEN DAVID OF WEST: $105,002 · OtherCONGREGATION OF MAGEN DAVID OF WESTLARCHWOOD SYNAGOGUE INC: $44,105 · OtherLARCHWOOD SYNAGOGUE INCLUNG MAGEN DAVID OF W DEAL: $20,000 · OtherLUNG MAGEN DAVID OF W DEALMAGEN DAVID YESHIVAH: $17,200 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $17,050 · Other+39 more: $125,535 · Other+39 moreDEAL SEPHARDIC YOUTH CENTER INC: $35,932 · Youth DevelopmentDEAL SEPHAR…SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER INC: $4,602 · Youth DevelopmentSEPHARDIC C…THE SEPHARDIC FOOD FUND INC: $15,101 · Food & NutritionLUNG CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $4,018 · HealthMONMOUTH MEDICAL CENTER: $3,600 · HealthCHAI LIFELINE INC: $1,360 · Health+1 more: $150 · HealthSBH COMMUNITY SERVICE NETWORK INC: $6,601 · Human ServicesTHE SPECIAL CHILDREN CENTER: $1,000 · Human ServicesISRAEL MEDICAL FUND CORP: $500 · Human Services+1 more: $200 · Human ServicesTHE BRIDGE ACADEMY INC: $7,601 · EducationUNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC: $3,600 · PhilanthropyTHE SHELLY COHEN BRIDAL FUND: $501 · Philanthropy
Other$328,892Youth Development$40,534Food & Nutrition$15,101Health$9,128Human Services$8,301Education$7,601Philanthropy$4,101

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 budgetDEAL SEPHARDIC YOUTH CENTER INC: $35,932 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTHE SEPHARDIC FOOD FUND INC: $15,101 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetTHE BRIDGE ACADEMY INC: $7,601 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetSBH COMMUNITY SERVICE NETWORK INC: $6,601 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSEPHARDIC COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER INC: $4,602 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLUNG CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $4,018 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC: $3,600 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $1,360 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE SPECIAL CHILDREN CENTER: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEZRA CORNMAN BAR MITZVAH FOUNDATION: $501 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetISRAEL MEDICAL FUND CORP: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMISASKIM CORP: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCIATION INC: $150 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 DEAL SEPHARDIC YOUTH CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds THE SEPHARDIC FOOD FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds THE BRIDGE ACADEMY INC ↗
  • Who funds SBH COMMUNITY SERVICE NETWORK INC ↗
  • Who funds SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds LUNG CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds UNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC ↗
  • Who funds MONMOUTH MEDICAL CENTER ↗
  • Who funds CHAI LIFELINE 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 Amin and Lillian …Samuel & Mollie Jemal…The Howard Hoffman & …Jewish Communal FundCharles & Esther Tebe…David M Levy Family F…Sammy R & Barbara Sut…The Michael and Saman…The Dweck and Rahmey …Altoon Sutton Memoria…Ic Hessed FoundationJoseph Jack Sitt 1986…
The Amin and Lillian Adjmi FoundationNY24.1× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Amin and Lillian Adjmi Foundation · Samuel & Mollie Jemal Foundation Co Jem Realty · The Howard Hoffman & Sons Foundation Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Charles & Esther Tebele Foundation Inc · David M Levy Family Foundation · Sammy R & Barbara Sutton Foundation · The Michael and Samantha Harary Family Foundation Inc · The Dweck and Rahmey Family Foundation · Altoon Sutton Memorial Fund · Ic Hessed Foundation · Joseph Jack Sitt 1986 - Charitable Trust

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 Morris and Esther Ades Foundation Co Morris Ades - S&A Stores Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Morris and Esther Ades Foundation Co Morris Ades - S&A Stores Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • The Special Children Center: 3% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
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 58 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 Morris and Esther Ades Foundation Co Morris Ades - S&A Stores’ 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