Skip to content
Philip & Lena Berger Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Philip & Lena Berger 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.

$26k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$6k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0171% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$30kHealth$24kArts & Culture$5kHuman Services$5kPublic Safety & Disaster$3kInternational$2kPhilanthropy$2kEducation$1kOther$0
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,800
Median grant
2
States reached
$48k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MISC - UNDER 1000$6,329
Individual grant recipient$5,000
EZER MIZION INC$2,500
YESHIVA DERECH HATORAH$2,500
HEBRON FUND$1,800
HATZALAH OF CENTRAL NJ$1,800
CHESED FUND$1,400
CONGREGATION TIFERES MOSHE YISROEL$1,000
KOLLEL CHABAD$1,000
GATES OF MERCY$1,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
LADIANO HOSPITAL$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 (FY18–22, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 22% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%BIKUR CHOLIM OF LAKEWOOD: $3k → 11%BIKUR CHOLIM OF LAKEWOOD: $1k → 11%MISASKIM: $1k → 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.

72%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$134k · 14 repeat orgs$51k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
20

Total granted

$134k
$36k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
0%

Still filing today

29%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 42% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k 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 ServicesHealthInternationalEducationOther
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

  • M
    MISC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $37k
  • ML
    MISC - LESS THAN 1000
    5× · 2017–2024 · $36k
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF YAD SARAH INC
    5× · 2017–2024 · $14k · revenue +213%

Funded once

  • MU
    MISCELLANEOUS UNDER 1000
    one grant, 2020 · $6k
  • JH
    JERUSALEM HERITAGE CENTER
    one grant, 2020 · $5k
  • H
    HAMERKAZ
    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 Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
2
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
3
Friends of Bikur Cholim Ezrat Achim

To support the charitable activities of the organization ezrat achim in the city of beit shemesh, israel.

International
4
Zicron Eliyahu Inc
—
5
Zichron Chaim Meir Foundation
Philanthropy
6
Zichron Chaim Avraham Foundation
Philanthropy
7
Sherit Isroel
—
8
Zichron Tzvi Elimelech

Assists thousands of needy individuals, families and multiplecharities in Israel and North America.

—
9
Zichron Boruch Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
10
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
11
Zohar Hatorah Inc

Religious School

Religion
12
Tzemach Yifroch Foundation
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chai Lifeline Inc; the most unlike its peers is Hebron Fund Inc. 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

10 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. 10 of the 42 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
4/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MISC: $37,266 · OtherMISCMISC - LESS THAN 1000: $35,784 · OtherMISC - LESS THAN 1000JERUSALEM CHESED FUND: $9,000 · OtherJERUSALEM CHESED FUNDIndividual grant recipient: $7,000 · OtherMISC - UNDER 1000: $6,329 · OtherMISCELLANEOUS UNDER 1000: $6,051 · OtherLADIANO HOSPITAL: $6,000 · Other+26 more: $46,420 · Other+26 moreFRIENDS OF YAD SARAH INC: $13,500 · HealthCHAI LIFELINE INC: $1,000 · HealthZaka Tel-Aviv Inc: $2,500 · PhilanthropyHEBRON FUND INC: $1,800 · PhilanthropyJGIVE-FRIENDS OF ASOR FUND USA INC: $1,800 · PhilanthropyEZER MIZION: $5,500 · InternationalBIKUR CHOLIM OF LAKEWOOD INC: $3,500 · Human ServicesMISASKIM CORP: $1,000 · Human ServicesYESHIVA OF GREATER WASHINGTON INC: $1,000 · Education
Other$153,850Health$14,500Philanthropy$6,100International$5,500Human Services$4,500Education$1,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFRIENDS OF YAD SARAH INC: $13,500 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetEZER MIZION: $5,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBIKUR CHOLIM OF LAKEWOOD INC: $3,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetYESHIVA DERECH CHAIM: $3,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetZaka Tel-Aviv Inc: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetJGIVE-FRIENDS OF ASOR FUND USA INC: $1,800 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYESHIVA OF GREATER WASHINGTON INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMISASKIM CORP: $1,000 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 FRIENDS OF YAD SARAH INC ↗
  • Who funds EZER MIZION ↗
  • Who funds BIKUR CHOLIM OF LAKEWOOD INC ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA DERECH CHAIM ↗
  • Who funds Zaka Tel-Aviv Inc ↗
  • Who funds HEBRON FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds JGIVE-FRIENDS OF ASOR FUND USA INC ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA OF GREATER WASHINGTON INC ↗
  • Who funds CHAI LIFELINE INC ↗
  • Who funds MISASKIM CORP ↗

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.

Jewish Communal FundThe Ojc FundMarbeh Shalom Foundat…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Jewish Communal FundNY16.2× affinity6 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · The Ojc Fund · Marbeh Shalom Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift 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 Philip & Lena Berger Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Philip & Lena Berger Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Yeshiva of Greater Washington Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
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 42 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 Philip & Lena Berger’s 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