Skip to content
R' Shaya Ben Moshe Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

R' Shaya Ben Moshe 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.

$68k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$68k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0162% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Religion$186kPhilanthropy$3kHuman Services$1kArts & Culture$450Youth Development$330Health$322International$269Education$200Other$0
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$68,205
Median grant
1
States reached
$24k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Misc Charities$68,205
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 (FY19–22, $429) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 91% 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: $38 → 6%Chaim Medical Resources: $100 → 14%Keren Hatzedaka: $20 → 11%Keren Hatzedaka: $20 → 11%Keren Hatzedaka: $10 → 11%Yazoiry: $20 → 14%Keren Hatzedaka: $10 → 11%Keren Hatzedaka: $10 → 11%Ozer Dalim of Lakewood: $10 → 11%Chai4Ever: $5 → 11%Ezras Cholim Dsatmar: $18 → 20%Ashreinu: $20 → 20%Bonei Olam: $100 → 20%Keren Halbusha: $18 → 20%Ashreinu: $10 → 20%Ashreinu: $10 → 20%Ashreinu: $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.

50%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$164k · 86 repeat orgs$164k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +31% since the first grant, against +22% for those funded once.

86 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2025, 86 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

86
324

Total granted

$164k
$95k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+31%
+22%

Still filing today

8%
5%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $68k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
ReligionHuman ServicesPhilanthropyInternationalEducationFood & NutritionOther
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

  • MU
    MENUCHA U'KEDUSHA INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $300 · revenue +502%
  • BY
    BEIS YOSEF CHAIM INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $300 · revenue +10%
  • TT
    TOMCHEI TZEDAKA CORP
    5× · 2019–2023 · $249 · revenue +53%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $10k
  • CP
    CONG PINAS YIKRAS
    one grant, 2019 · $8k
  • CK
    Cong Kahal Yeshaye Kerestur
    one grant, 2020 · $6k
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
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
2
Shaarei Halacha Inc
Philanthropy
3
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
4
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Chevras Shabbos Kodesh Podcast Fellowship
Religion
6
Chasdei Yetev Lev Inc

Provide financial assistance to needy individuals, and to religious, educational, and charitable organizations in us and abroad.

—
7
Ohr Olam Corp

publish religious books

Religion
8
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
9
Ahavas Torah V'chesed
Philanthropy
10
Zicron Eliyahu Inc
—
11
Mishken Chaim Rivnits

Assistance to the indigent

Religion
12
Keren Torah Vchesed

Keren torah vchesed inc. is the american fundraising arm of irgun hesh hatorah an established israeli religious organization that maintains religious centers for worship and torah study and alleeviates poverty in israel

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tomchei Tzedaka Corp; the most unlike its peers is Ezras Cholim D Satmar 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

27 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. 27 of the 411 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)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/27
Grantees still filing
20/27
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $108,379 · OtherIndividual grant recipientMisc Charities: $68,205 · OtherMisc Charities+188 more: $143,216 · Other+188 moreBEIS YOSEF CHAIM INC: $300 · PhilanthropyYETEV LEV INC: $219 · PhilanthropyCENTRAL TZEDAKAH INC: $72 · PhilanthropyTOMCHEI TZEDAKA CORP: $249 · ReligionCongregation Rav Lehoshia Inc: $101 · ReligionMIKVAH USA INC: $90 · ReligionCHAIM MEDICAL RESOURCE INC: $100 · Human ServicesBonei Olam Inc: $100 · Human ServicesKEREN HATZEDAKA INC: $80 · Human ServicesKOLEL CHIBAS JERUSALEM: $223 · International
Other$319,800Philanthropy$591Religion$440Human Services$280International$223

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$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBEIS YOSEF CHAIM INC: $300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTOMCHEI TZEDAKA CORP: $249 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetKOLEL CHIBAS JERUSALEM: $223 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCongregation Rav Lehoshia Inc: $101 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHAIM MEDICAL RESOURCE INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBonei Olam Inc: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMIKVAH USA INC: $90 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetKEREN HATZEDAKA INC: $80 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCENTRAL TZEDAKAH INC: $72 over 2y, 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.

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 FundThe Lexicon Foundatio…Bochner FoundationKee Seesu FoundationBlum FoundationA&E Hauer Family Foun…S&E FoundationKanfei Yoneh Foundati…Nimlach FoundationGreenzweig Family Fou…Strulovich Family Fou…Yr Foundation
The Ojc FundNY89.5× affinity80 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 · Kee Seesu Foundation · Blum Foundation · A&E Hauer Family Foundation · S&E Foundation · Kanfei Yoneh Foundation · Nimlach Foundation · Greenzweig Family Foundation · Strulovich Family Foundation Trust · Yr 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 R' Shaya Ben Moshe Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from R' Shaya Ben Moshe Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 30%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Chai 4EVER Inc: 2% of 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 · 0–75%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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 411 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 R' Shaya Ben Moshe’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