Skip to content
Plinth

· 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 you fund
01

What you funded, over time

By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 88% of O & M Abraham Foundation’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.

02FY2025 · 35 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$200
Median grant
4
States reached
$567k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$4,000
Matat Mordechai$3,000
American Friends of Kupat Hair$1,000
Yeshivas Novominsk$1,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
Shiras Chaim Inc$1,000
Torah Schools for Israel$1,000
Mesivtha Tifereth Jerusalem of America$1,000
Yeshiva Karlin Stolin$1,000
Individual grant recipient$800
Individual grant recipient$500
The American Friends of CRIB - Efrat$500
Shuvu Return$500
Young Israel Talmud Torah of Flatbush$500
American Theological Center$350
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:

Your 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 your 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

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.

Which US states your grants reach

ME
MI
NY
MA
NJ
CT
RI
VA
TN
FL

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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve 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

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

  • 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
  • RP
    RACHEL'S PLACE CHARITABLE TRUSTgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $1k · revenue +111%
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF NATAL INC
    one grant, 2024 · $1k · revenue 0%

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

04Your field

The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — 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

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of Natal Inc and 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.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyJewish Charitable AssistanceOrthodox Jewish Educational…Jewish Family FoundationsDevelopmental Disability Se…Jewish Elementary SchoolsFaith-Based Community Organ…
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 23 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number23%6%<5yr17%3%5–10yr21%27%10–20yr22%33%20–35yr12%15%35–55yr6%15%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value23%9%<5yr17%1%5–10yr21%25%10–20yr22%28%20–35yr12%31%35–55yr6%6%55yr+

The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 9% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close 3% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
3%1/35
the rest of the field
11%
2,503/23,458

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

04the grantee network

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

Where your money sits — by cause, 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 org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your 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 KUPAT HA'IR — $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF NATAL INC — $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 budgetFLATBUSH VOLUNTEERS OF HATZOLOH INC — $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetZaka Tel-Aviv Inc — $500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE WOMANS NETWORK FOR SINGLE PARENTS — $458 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetMISASKIM CORP — $450 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetYESHIVA GEDOLAH OF WOODLAKE VILLAGE — $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC — $100 over 1y, 0.0% 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 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 KUPAT HA'IR
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF NATAL INC
  • 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

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 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

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 O & M Abraham 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 · 30%0%1%3%5%your 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, 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 74 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph