Skip to content
Project Inspire Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Project Inspire Inc

The organization's mission is to plan, coordinate, operate and provide aid and assistance for jewish identity-building, leadership training and community service seminars and cognate educational programs and studies and to encourage others to also provide such aid and support; to provide financial support and assistance, scholarships and…

$24k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$12k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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 2024.

Religion$601kEducation$7k
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $20,130, the rows itemized in this filing. The $24,380 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $4,250 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $12k
$12,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$361k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
YESHIVA RABBI CHAIM BERLIN$12,000
BETH JACOB OF BORO PARK$8,130
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 95% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%YESHIVA BETH MOSHE: $12k → 13%MESIVTA OF LONG BEACH: $10k → 6%MERCAZ HATORAH BELLE HARBOR: $9k → 13%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA TIFERET: $7k → 14%YESHIVA TIFERES ELIMELECH: $20k → 20%YESHIVA GEDOLAH OF WATERBURY: $32k → 12%TELSHE YESHIVA: $8k → 14%KOLLEL INTERNATIONAL INC: $146k → 11%YKOP: $11k → 12%MESIVTA OF LONG BEACH: $10k → 6%YESHIVA TORAS CHAIM: $7k → 14%BETH JACOB OF BORO PARK: $9k → 20%YESHIVA GEDOLAH OF WATERBURY: $23k → 12%DERECH HACHAIM FUND: $8k → 11%YKOP: $6k → 12%MESIVTA OF LONG BEACH: $9k → 6%YESHIVA IMREI BINA INC: $18k → 20%YESHIVA GEDOLAH OF WATERBURY: $20k → 12%YESHIVA GEDOLAH HADRAS HATORAH: $7k → 11%YKOP: $5k → 12%BETH JACOB OF BORO PARK: $9k → 20%YESHIVA GEDOLAH OF WATERBURY: $20k → 12%YESHIVA KESSER TORAH: $6k → 11%YESHIVA TIFERES ELIMELECH: $18k → 20%YESHIVA GEDOLAH OF WATERBURY: $18k → 12%YESHIVA GEDOLAH HADRAS HATORAH: $5k → 11%BETH JACOB OF BORO PARK: $8k → 20%MESIVTA OF EATONTOWN: $5k → 11%YESHIVA TIFERES ELIMELECH: $16k → 20%BETH JACOB OF BORO PARK: $8k → 20%YESHIVA IMREI BINA INC: $9k → 20%BETH JACOB OF BORO PARK: $8k → 20%YESHIVA TIFERES ELIMELECH: $8k → 20%BETH JACOB OF BORO PARK: $6k → 20%YESHIVA BIRCHAS MOSHE: $7k → 20%BETH JACOB OF BORO PARK: $2k → 20%YESHIVA TIFERES ELIMELECH: $6k → 20%YESHIVAS OHR YERUSHALAYIM: $17k → 20%YESHIVA RABBI CHAIM BERLIN: $16k → 20%YESHIVA RABBI CHAIM BERLIN: $12k → 20%MESIVTA TIFERES SHMUEL: $8k → 20%MESIVTA TIFERES SHMUEL: $7k → 20%CONGREGATION OHEL YAAKOV: $13k → 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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 38% of Project Inspire Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 33% of the giving stays in NJ; by stated purpose, 27%.

Project Inspire Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

60%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$364k · 9 repeat orgs$243k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
12

Total granted

$364k
$243k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+8%
+29%

Still filing today

22%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
ReligionPhilanthropyEducationOther
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

  • YG
    YESHIVA GEDOLAH OF WATERBURY
    5× · 2019–2023 · $113k
  • YT
    YESHIVA TIFERES ELIMELECH
    5× · 2017–2023 · $67k
  • BJ
    BETH JACOB OF BORO PARK
    7× · 2018–2024 · $50k

Funded once

  • KI
    KOLLEL INTERNATIONAL INC
    one grant, 2022 · $146k
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVAT OHR YERUSHALAYIM INC
    one grant, 2022 · $17k · revenue -8%
  • CO
    CONG OHEL TORAH
    one grant, 2023 · $13k
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
05the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 21 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/6
Grantees still filing
4/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

KOLLEL INTERNATIONAL INC: $146,000 · OtherKOLLEL INTERNATIONAL INCYESHIVA GEDOLAH OF WATERBURY: $113,073 · OtherYESHIVA GEDOLAH OF WATERBURYYESHIVA TIFERES ELIMELECH: $67,487 · OtherYESHIVA TIFERES ELIMELECHBETH JACOB OF BORO PARK: $50,195 · OtherBETH JACOB OF BORO PARKMESIVTA OF LONG BEACH: $28,500 · OtherMESIVTA OF LONG BEACHMESIVTA YESHIVA RABBI CHAIM BERLIN: $27,800 · OtherMESIVTA YESHIVA RABBI CHAIM BERLIN+9 more: $78,580 · Other+9 moreYESHIVA IMREI BINA INC: $27,100 · ReligionYESHIVA IMREI B…YESHIVA KTANA OF PASSAIC: $22,200 · ReligionYESHIVA KTANA O…AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVAT OHR YERUSHALAYIM INC: $17,000 · ReligionAMERICAN FRIEND…YESHIVA OHR YITZCHOK: $15,100 · ReligionYESHIVA OHR YIT…DERECH HACHAIM FUND INC: $7,500 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA TIFERET: $7,000 · Education
Other$511,635Religion$81,400Philanthropy$7,500Education$7,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetYESHIVA IMREI BINA INC: $27,100 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetYESHIVA KTANA OF PASSAIC: $22,200 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVAT OHR YERUSHALAYIM INC: $17,000 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetYESHIVA OHR YITZCHOK: $15,100 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetDERECH HACHAIM FUND INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA TIFERET: $7,000 over 1y, 0.5% 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 YESHIVA IMREI BINA INC ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA KTANA OF PASSAIC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVAT OHR YERUSHALAYIM INC ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA OHR YITZCHOK ↗
  • Who funds DERECH HACHAIM FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA TIFERET ↗

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 FundJewish Communal FundAssociated Jewish Cha…Lakewood Cheder Schoo…National Society for …Jewish Community Foun…Keren Yehuda Zvi Foun…Jewish Federation of …National Philanthropi…T Rowe Price Program …Vanguard Charitable E…Fidelity Investments …
The Ojc FundNY30.8× affinity15 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 · Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore · Lakewood Cheder School Inc · National Society for Hebrew Day Schools · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Keren Yehuda Zvi Foundation · Jewish Federation of Cleveland · National Philanthropic Trust · T Rowe Price Program for Charitable Giving Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Project Inspire Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Project Inspire Inc. 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
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Project Inspire Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Project Inspire Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 21 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 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 Project Inspire’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