Skip to content

· Private foundation

Nimlach 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.

$42k
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it funds
0157% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Philanthropy$994kReligion$980kHuman Services$31kHealth$10kArts & Culture$10kCrime & Legal$10kYouth Development$3kEducation$2kOther$0
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k9 grants · $32k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$5,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$366k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PAYPAL GIVING FUND$10,000
LECHEM LFI HATAF INC$6,000
CONG YETEV LEV$5,493
MOSDOS TOSH$5,000
YAD LACHMU ANYU$5,000
KEREN HATZOLAH$3,600
CHAYIM VCHESED INC$2,500
VARIOUS CONTRIBUTIONS PAID LESS THAN 1500$2,084
YETEV LEV D JERUSALEM INC DBA MOSDOS SATMAR BNEI BRAK$1,800
Individual grant recipient$1,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–20, $385) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 94% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ACHIEZER: $25 → 6%Chaim Medical Resource: $100 → 14%CHAIM MEDICAL RESOURCES: $50 → 14%ACHIEZER: $200 → 20%Kimpatorin Aid: $10 → 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.

40%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$563k · 65 repeat orgs$853k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +105% since the first grant, against +31% for those funded once.

65 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2024, 58 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

65
422

Total granted

$563k
$846k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+105%
+31%

Still filing today

12%
3%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
PhilanthropyReligionHuman ServicesArts & CultureEducationHealthOther
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

  • TZ
    THE ZOHAR CHARITY AND EDUCATIONAL
    2× · 2021–2022 · $81k · revenue +4%
  • CV
    CHAYIM V CHESED
    4× · 2021–2024 · $31k · revenue +96%
  • BY
    BEIS YOSEF CHAIM INC
    2× · 2018–2020 · $386 · revenue +105%

Funded once

  • KH
    Keren Hatorah
    one grant, 2020 · $70k
  • FC
    fidelity charitable
    one grant, 2018 · $65k
  • UM
    United mosdos tora veyira
    one grant, 2019 · $58k
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 Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
2
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
3
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
4
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
5
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
6
Tzemach Yifroch Foundation
—
7
Zichron Chaim Avraham Foundation
Philanthropy
8
Zichron Chaim Meir Foundation
Philanthropy
9
Ahavas Torah V'chesed
Philanthropy
10
Zicron Eliyahu Inc
—
11
Nefesh Chaim Inc
Religion
12
The Yad Moach Vlev Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Eizer Chaim Yom Tov Inc; the most unlike its peers is Keren Torah Vchesed. 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

26 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. 26 of the 492 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)
10
Early backer (in before they grew)
24/26
Grantees still filing
24/26
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONG BAIS MOSHE ZEV DKABA INC: $110,400 · OtherCONG BAIS MOSHE ZEV DKABA INCKeren Hatorah: $70,000 · OtherKeren Hatorahfidelity charitable: $65,000 · OtherUnited mosdos tora veyira: $58,000 · Othercong yetev lev: $55,998 · OtherCong Bais Moshe Zev: $51,100 · OtherTORAH VEYIRAH INSTITUTE INC: $49,000 · OtherVarious Charities: $48,455 · Other+185 more: $767,486 · Other+185 morePAYPAL CHARITABLE GIVING FUND: $579,500 · PhilanthropyPAYPAL CHARITABLE GIVING FUN…+2 more: $819 · PhilanthropyTHE OJC FUND: $173,254 · EducationFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $127,550 · Community ImprovementTHE ZOHAR CHARITY AND EDUCATIONAL: $81,000 · Arts & CultureCHAYIM V CHESED: $30,900 · Religion
Other$1,275,439Philanthropy$580,319Education$173,254Community Improvement$127,550Arts & Culture$81,000Religion$30,900

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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 budgetPAYPAL CHARITABLE GIVING FUND: $579,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetTHE OJC FUND: $173,254 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $127,550 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ZOHAR CHARITY AND EDUCATIONAL: $81,000 over 2y, 2.7% of budgetCHAYIM V CHESED: $30,900 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetBEIS YOSEF CHAIM INC: $386 over 2y, 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 PAYPAL CHARITABLE GIVING FUND ↗
  • Who funds THE OJC FUND ↗
  • Who funds FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
  • Who funds THE ZOHAR CHARITY AND EDUCATIONAL ↗
  • Who funds CHAYIM V CHESED ↗

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 FundNY80.1× affinity73 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · Bochner Foundation · Zelig and Rifky Weiss Family Foundation Inc · Kanfei Yoneh Foundation · Blum Foundation · American Friends of Bnai Levy Foundation · S&E Foundation · Keren Ish Foundation · R' Shaya Ben Moshe Foundation · Strulovich Family Foundation Trust · Madanim 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 Nimlach Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Nimlach Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%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
    2get 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, FY20–25
    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 492 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 Nimlach’s filings →

    More from the funding graph