Skip to content
Raphael and Rachel Ehrenpreis Ttm Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Raphael and Rachel Ehrenpreis Ttm Foundation Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$56k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$56k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0168% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

Religion$135kEducation$7kHealth$5kPhilanthropy$3kHuman Services$1kInternational$1kArts & Culture$500Food & Nutrition$250Other$0
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$55,803
Median grant
1
States reached
$107k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
VARIOUS 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATIONS$55,803
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 (FY21–23, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 63% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CHAIM MEDICAL RESOURCE: $100 → 14%CHICAGO CHESED FUND: $500 → 14%BIKKUR CHOLIM OF PHILADELPHIA: $200 → 22%CHICAGO CHESED FUND: $100 → 14%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER: $1k → 11%A TIME: $254 → 20%A TIME: $250 → 20%MISASKIM: $200 → 20%BONEI OLAM: $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.
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.

41%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$69k · 24 repeat orgs$98k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +3% since the first grant, against -1% for those funded once.

24 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2024, 24 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

24
84

Total granted

$69k
$42k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+3%
-1%

Still filing today

25%
23%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $56k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesReligionEducationInternationalArts & CultureHealthOther
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

  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $3k · revenue +3%
  • CL
    CHAI LIFELINE INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $3k · revenue +13%
  • CC
    CHICAGO CHESED FUND
    2× · 2022–2023 · $600 · revenue +1%

Funded once

  • BM
    BETH MEDRASH L'TORAH V'HORAAH
    one grant, 2022 · $8k
  • BM
    BETH MEDRASH L TORAH V HOROAH
    one grant, 2023 · $6k
  • KB
    KHAL BNEI AVROHOM YAAKOV INC
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
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
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
2
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

—
3
Yeshiva Toras Chaim of Greater Miami Inc

To operate a religious school for high school and post high school students.

Education
4
Ohr Olam Corp

publish religious books

Religion
5
Friends of Meor Israel

Education and religious activities and research

Education
6
Sherit Isroel
—
7
Torah Ore Seminary

To promote the furtherance of jewish religious and rabbinic education on a college and graduate level in israel and to increase the dissemination of scholarly research works in the fields of torah, talmud and halacha.

Education
8
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
9
Friends of Mitzzos Haaretz Inc

To promote religious observance in israel.

—
10
Friends of Yeshiva Beer Abraham

Furtherance of jewish education

Religion
11
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
12
Zohar Hatorah Inc

Religious School

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of Yeshiva Dmir Inc; the most unlike its peers is Our Place 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

25 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. 25 of the 109 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
25/25
Grantees still filing
12/25
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

VARIOUS 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATIONS: $55,803 · OtherVARIOUS 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATIONSMESIVTHA TIFERETH JERUSALEM OF AMER: $34,664 · OtherMESIVTHA TIFERETH JERUSALEM OF AMERBETH MEDRASH L'TORAH V'HORAAH: $8,060 · OtherBETH MEDRASH L'TORAH V'HORAAHMANHATTAN HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS: $6,388 · OtherBETH MEDRASH L TORAH V HOROAH: $5,700 · Other+84 more: $37,147 · Other+84 moreKEREN HASHVIIS INC: $4,800 · ReligionTORAS CHAIM INC: $1,800 · ReligionKNESET MORDECHAI: $500 · Religion+3 more: $316 · ReligionAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC: $3,470 · InternationalAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM: $180 · InternationalCHAI LIFELINE INC: $3,400 · HealthAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER: $1,000 · Human ServicesCHICAGO CHESED FUND: $600 · Human ServicesA Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange: $504 · Human ServicesMISASKIM CORP: $200 · Human ServicesBikkur Cholim of Philadelphia: $200 · Human ServicesBonei Olam Inc: $100 · Human ServicesCHAIM MEDICAL RESOURCE INC: $100 · Human ServicesFRIENDS OF ADERES HATORAH INC: $1,000 · PhilanthropyYeshiva Tiferes Yisroel: $686 · EducationYESHIVA UNIVERSITY: $100 · EducationJEWELS SCHOOL INC: $50 · Education
Other$147,762Religion$7,416International$3,650Health$3,400Human Services$2,704Philanthropy$1,000Education$836

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetKEREN HASHVIIS INC: $4,800 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC: $3,470 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $3,400 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTORAS CHAIM INC: $1,800 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetYESHIVA ZICHRON MAYIR: $1,300 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF ADERES HATORAH INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYeshiva Tiferes Yisroel: $686 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCHICAGO CHESED FUND: $600 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetA Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange: $504 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF UNITED HATZALAH INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKNESET MORDECHAI: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOUR PLACE INC: $250 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetMISASKIM CORP: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBikkur Cholim of Philadelphia: $200 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFOUNDATION OF JEWISH BROADCASTING I: $180 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMACHON PRI EITZ CHAIM INC: $180 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBonei Olam Inc: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTORAH LINKS OF LAKEWOOD INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTASHBAR OF LAKEWOOD INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYESHIVA UNIVERSITY: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHAIM MEDICAL RESOURCE INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJEWELS SCHOOL INC: $50 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHOFETZ CHAIM HERITAGE FOUNDATION: $36 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 KEREN HASHVIIS INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC ↗
  • Who funds CHAI LIFELINE INC ↗
  • Who funds TORAS CHAIM INC ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA ZICHRON MAYIR ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF ADERES HATORAH INC ↗
  • Who funds Yeshiva Tiferes Yisroel ↗
  • Who funds CHICAGO CHESED FUND ↗
  • Who funds A Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF UNITED HATZALAH INC ↗
  • Who funds KNESET MORDECHAI ↗

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 FundBcg Charitable Founda…Jsw FoundationThe Nathan and Marily…The R & S Family Foun…The Sorala FoundationMarbeh Shalom Foundat…FjcMd Friedman Family Fo…Chavie Stern Family F…The Fishoff Family Fo…
The Ojc FundNY31.7× affinity17 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 · Bcg Charitable Foundation · Jsw Foundation · The Nathan and Marilyn Silberman Fdn · The R & S Family Foundation Inc · The Sorala Foundation · Marbeh Shalom Foundation Inc · Fjc · Md Friedman Family Foundation · Chavie Stern Family Foundation Inc · The Fishoff Family 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 Raphael and Rachel Ehrenpreis Ttm Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Raphael and Rachel Ehrenpreis Ttm Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 60%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 4%
  • Tashbar of Lakewood Inc: 4% of income from government
  • Jewels School Inc: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
6get no government money at all
2report 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, FY20–25
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 109 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Raphael and Rachel Ehrenpreis Ttm’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