Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

N&L Charitable Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$27k
Granted FY2019
14
Grants FY2019
1
States reached
$6k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of N&L Charitable Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to The Ojc Fund, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2019, the last year N&L Charitable Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 10 organizations, $27k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

10
19
5
20
0
22
0
23
2
24
0
25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What you fund
0191% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20192025.

Philanthropy$751kReligion$84kFood & Nutrition$7kPublic Safety & Disaster$5kEducation$5kCivil Rights$2kInternational$360Other$0
02FY2019 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$1,200
Median grant
1
States reached
$2k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE OJC FUND$6,250
YESHIVA TALPIOT INC$5,000
UTA OF KJ SC INC$3,600
TOVA UVRUCHA INC$3,600
KIRYAS JOEL VOLUNTEER EMS$1,800
SHEIRIS ISRUEL$1,500
CONG SHAREI EZRA INC$1,200
EZRAS ALTA FIEGA$1,197
Individual grant recipient$680
CONGREGATION KEREN ECRAH INC$500
Individual grant recipient$500
CONG TOV UMEITOV$500
ZICHRON MENACHEM INC$360
YETEV LEV$360
02The need
03

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YOUNG ISRAEL: $2k → 11%YESHIVA TALPIOT INC: $5k → 14%YESHIVA KETANA SATMAR KJ: $50k → 14%RCCS: $2k → 20%CONGREGATION KEREN ECRAH INC: $500 → 14%YESHIVAS MAHARIT DSATMAR: $10k → 14%EZRAS ALTA FIEGA: $1k → 20%ZICHRON MENACHEM INC: $360 → 14%CONG SMITH GARDEN: $7k → 14%SHEIRIS ISRUEL: $2k → 20%UTA GESHIVA GEDOLAH: $7k → 14%SHEIRIS ISRUEL: $2k → 20%CONG BIAS BUROCH OF YETEV LEV: $4k → 14%TEFIRES BCHIREM: $500 → 20%UTA OF KJ SC INC: $4k → 14%TOVA UVRUCHA INC: $4k → 20%KIRYAS JOEL VOLUNTEER EMS: $4k → 14%THE OJC FUND: $301k → 20%CONG SHAREI EZRA INC: $2k → 14%THE OJC FUND: $260k → 20%KIRYAS JOEL VOLUNTEER EMS: $2k → 14%THE OJC FUND: $149k → 20%CONG SHAREI EZRA INC: $1k → 14%THE OJC FUND: $22k → 20%CONG OHEL MORDECHE DTOSH: $1k → 14%THE OJC FUND: $13k → 20%MOSDOS YETEV LEV OF ANTWERP INC: $500 → 14%THE OJC FUND: $6k → 20%YETEV LEV: $360 → 14%CONG TOV UMEITOV: $500 → 20%CONG SHAREI TORAH INC: $200 → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge
repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

11%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$12k · 3 repeat orgs$100k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2019, 0 since wound down; 20 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call). Read against FY2019, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
20

Total granted

$12k
$100k

Still filing today

0%
15%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $60k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’23’24
EducationReligionPhilanthropyOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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

  • KJ
    KIRYAS JOEL VOLUNTEER EMS
    2× · 2019–2020 · $5k
  • SI
    SHEIRIS ISRUEL
    2× · 2019–2020 · $3k
  • CS
    CONG SHAREI EZRA INC
    2× · 2019–2020 · $3k

Funded once

  • YK
    YESHIVA KETANA SATMAR KJ
    one grant, 2024 · $50k
  • YM
    YESHIVAS MAHARIT DSATMAR
    one grant, 2024 · $10k
  • CS
    CONG SMITH GARDEN
    one grant, 2023 · $7k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field
04the grantee network

4 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 4 of the 24 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
4/4
Grantees still filing
4/4
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

THE OJC FUND — $751,250 · EducationTHE OJC FUND+1 more — $5,000 · EducationYESHIVA KETANA SATMAR KJ — $50,000 · OtherYESHIVA KETAN…YESHIVAS MAHARIT DSATMAR — $10,000 · OtherYESHIVAS MAHA…CONG SMITH GARDEN — $7,200 · OtherCONG SMITH GA…Individual grant recipient — $7,000 · OtherIndividual gr…KIRYAS JOEL VOLUNTEER EMS — $5,400 · OtherCONG BIAS BUROCH OF YETEV LEV — $4,000 · OtherTOVA UVRUCHA INC — $3,600 · Other+13 more — $15,555 · Other+13 moreUTA OF KJ SC INC — $3,600 · ReligionYETEV LEV INC — $360 · Philanthropy
Education$756,250Other$102,755Religion$3,600Philanthropy$360

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetTHE OJC FUND — $751,250 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetUTA OF KJ SC INC — $3,600 over 1y, 0.3% of budget
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds THE OJC FUND
  • Who funds YESHIVA TALPIOT INC
  • Who funds UTA OF KJ SC INC
  • Who funds YETEV LEV INC

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Ojc FundNY24.7× affinity11 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · Mr Charitable Foundation · Zelig and Rifky Weiss Family Foundation Inc · Fk Charitable Foundation · Chayim V Chesed · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organization N&L Charitable Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%your 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
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 24 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph