Skip to content

· Private foundation

O & M Abraham 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.

$20k
Granted FY2025still arriving
35
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$4k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Religion$111kPhilanthropy$8kHuman Services$3kInternational$2kPublic Safety & Disaster$2kHealth$100
02FY2025 · 35 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$200
Median grant
4
States reached
$567k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$4,000
Matat Mordechai$3,000
Torah Schools for Israel$1,000
Mesivtha Tifereth Jerusalem of America$1,000
American Friends of Kupat Hair$1,000
Yeshiva Karlin Stolin$1,000
Yeshivas Novominsk$1,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
Shiras Chaim Inc$1,000
Individual grant recipient$800
The American Friends of CRIB - Efrat$500
Young Israel Talmud Torah of Flatbush$500
Individual grant recipient$500
Shuvu Return$500
American Theological Center$350
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 (FY17–21, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%Misaskim: $250 → 20%CMMTE FOR THE RESCUE OF ISRAELS BABIES: $500 → 20%CMMTE FOR THE RESCUE OF ISRAELS BABIES: $200 → 20%Misaskim: $100 → 20%Misaskim: $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.

Which US states its grants reach

ME
MI
NY
MA
NJ
CT
RI
VA
TN
FL
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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$102k · 37 repeat orgs$19k to everyone else

37 repeat relationships: 16 still active in FY2025, 21 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

37
28

Total granted

$102k
$13k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+12%
+74%

Still filing today

19%
18%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
PhilanthropyHuman ServicesReligionEducationHealthInternationalOther
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

  • HS
    HATZALAH SOUTH FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDCIAL SERVICES INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $720 · revenue ×28
  • CF
    Committee for the Rescue of Israel Babies DBA Efrat
    2× · 2017–2020 · $700 · revenue +65%
  • ZT
    Zaka Tel-Aviv Inc
    2× · 2023–2024 · $500 · revenue +3%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
  • TS
    Tomche Shabbos
    one grant, 2023 · $1k
  • NH
    NOAM HATALMUD
    one grant, 2023 · $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

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
Sherit Isroel
—
2
Zohar Hatorah Inc

Religious School

Religion
3
Tal Hashamayim Foundation
Religion
4
The Keren Rachaim Fund
—
5
Rashbi Tehillim Incorporated
Religion
6
Shaarei Halacha Inc
Philanthropy
7
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
8
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
9
Tzevet Hatzolah Emergency Response

Ensure that every segment of israeli society is protected from terrorism and is well equipped to respond to life threatening emergencies

Public Safety & Disaster
10
Hatzolah Tosh Inc

Providing financial assistance to emergency organizations as well as other charitable, educational, and religious organizations worldwide.

Philanthropy
11
American Friends of Shviti Hashem Inc

To support and promote the study of torah (bible) among members of jewish faith worldwide.

Religion
12
Zichron Moshe Elihu Tzedoka Fund
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of Natal Inc; the most unlike its peers is Rachel's Place Charitable Trust. 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

17 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. 17 of the 74 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/17
Grantees still filing
11/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $42,524 · OtherIndividual grant recipientYESHIVAS NOVOMINSK: $13,000 · OtherYESHIVAS NOVOMINSKFriends of Talmid Torah Hadaar Zion: $6,000 · OtherFriends of Talmid Torah Hadaar Zion+58 more: $49,328 · Other+58 moreDONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC: $3,500 · PhilanthropyMATAT MORDECHAI: $3,000 · PhilanthropyRACHEL'S PLACE CHARITABLE TRUST: $1,000 · PhilanthropySHUVU RETURN INC: $750 · PhilanthropyZaka Tel-Aviv Inc: $500 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN FRIENDS OF KUPAT HA'IR: $1,000 · ReligionKEREN HASHVIIS INC: $750 · ReligionCommittee for the Rescue of Israel Babies DBA Efrat: $700 · Human ServicesMISASKIM CORP: $450 · Human ServicesYeshivas Hagram Soloveitchik Inc: $1,000 · EducationYESHIVA GEDOLAH OF WOODLAKE VILLAGE: $100 · EducationAMERICAN FRIENDS OF NATAL INC: $1,000 · InternationalHATZALAH SOUTH FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDCIAL SERVICES INC: $720 · Public Safety & Disaster
Other$110,852Philanthropy$8,750Religion$1,750Human Services$1,150Education$1,100International$1,000Public Safety & Disaster$720

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 budgetDONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC: $3,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetRACHEL'S PLACE CHARITABLE TRUST: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF NATAL INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF KUPAT HA'IR: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYeshivas Hagram Soloveitchik Inc: $1,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetKEREN HASHVIIS INC: $750 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSHUVU RETURN INC: $750 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHATZALAH SOUTH FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDCIAL SERVICES INC: $720 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCommittee for the Rescue of Israel Babies DBA Efrat: $700 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetZaka Tel-Aviv Inc: $500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFLATBUSH VOLUNTEERS OF HATZOLOH INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE WOMANS NETWORK FOR SINGLE PARENTS: $458 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetMISASKIM CORP: $450 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYESHIVA GEDOLAH OF WOODLAKE VILLAGE: $100 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 DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC ↗
  • Who funds TORAH SCHOOLS FOR ISRAEL ↗
  • Who funds MATAT MORDECHAI ↗
  • Who funds RACHEL'S PLACE CHARITABLE TRUST ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF NATAL INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF KUPAT HA'IR ↗
  • Who funds Yeshivas Hagram Soloveitchik Inc ↗
  • Who funds KEREN HASHVIIS INC ↗
  • Who funds SHUVU RETURN INC ↗
  • Who funds HATZALAH SOUTH FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDCIAL SERVICES 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 FundNY35× affinity19 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · The Zev and Susan Munk Family Foundation · The Stern Family Foundation · M & M Fischer Foundation · Gertrude and Morris Bienenfeld Charitable Foundation · The Nathan and Marilyn Silberman Fdn · Friends of Mosdot Goor · The Fishoff Family Foundation · Zichron Chaim Charity Fund

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 O & M Abraham Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from O & M Abraham Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’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 →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get 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 · 0–10%
    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 74 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on O & M Abraham’s filings →

    More from the funding graph