Skip to content

· Private foundation

Sam and Judith Freier 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.

$13k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it funds
0187% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Religion$879kRecreation & Sports$3kHealth$2kEducation$100Human Services$100Other$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$2k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNDER 500$4,665
Individual grant recipient$3,910
Individual grant recipient$2,000
CONG KAHAL CHASIDIM PUPA$1,548
YI OF AVENUE K$900
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 (FY17–21, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%BONEI OLAM: $500 → 20%A TIME: $180 → 20%BONEI OLAM: $500 → 20%BONEI OLAM: $300 → 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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$956k · 28 repeat orgs$69k to everyone else

28 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 24 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

28
28

Total granted

$956k
$67k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+123%
+225%

Still filing today

18%
14%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k 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
ReligionHuman ServicesCrime & LegalHealthOther
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

  • TA
    THE ALEPH INSTITUTE INC
    4× · 2017–2022 · $6k · revenue +123%
  • CL
    Chevrah Lomdei Mishnah Inc
    7× · 2017–2023 · $4k · revenue +42%
  • BO
    Bonei Olam Inc
    3× · 2017–2021 · $1k · revenue +224%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $12k
  • YT
    YESHIVA TORAS EMES
    one grant, 2018 · $11k
  • BH
    BAIS HATALMUD
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
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
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

—
2
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
3
The Keren Rachaim Fund
—
4
Bikur Cholim of Ny Inc

Medical Guidance

—
5
Chabad Lametayel Inc

encourage and facilitate the observance of traditional orthodox Jewish practices around the world.

—
6
Mishken Chaim Rivnits

Assistance to the indigent

Religion
7
Chevras Shabbos Kodesh Podcast Fellowship
Religion
8
Bonei Olam Division of Rockland County

Bonei Olam provides financial assistance,guidance & referrals for assisted reproductive technology,including consultations, work up, medications, high risk pregnancy,Preimplantation genetic diagnosis,pre & post…

International
9
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
10
The Nochim & Rivka Zeldes Foundation
—
11
Bonei Olam Division of Central Jersey Inc

Bonei Olam provides financial assistance,guidance & referrals for assisted reproductive technology,including consultations, work up, medications, high risk pregnancy,Preimplantation genetic diagnosis,pre & post…

International
12
Shaarei Halacha Inc
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Keren Hashviis Inc; the most unlike its peers is Rivkah Laufer Bikur Cholim. 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

9 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. 9 of the 57 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONGREGATION BELZER SHTIBEL OF SPRI: $220,000 · OtherCONGREGATION BELZER SHTIBEL OF SPRIIndividual grant recipient: $120,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $110,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientKOLEL BELZ: $95,000 · OtherKOLEL BELZYESHIVATH TORAH VODAATH: $78,805 · OtherYESHIVATH TORAH VODAATHIndividual grant recipient: $71,554 · OtherIndividual grant recipientBAIS YAAKOV DRAV MEIR: $49,150 · OtherCONG KEHAL YIREI HASHEM: $45,000 · OtherYESHIVA SHAAREI TORAH: $41,000 · Other+40 more: $180,273 · Other+40 moreTHE ALEPH INSTITUTE INC: $6,302 · Crime & LegalChevrah Lomdei Mishnah Inc: $4,294 · ReligionKEREN HASHVIIS INC: $1,250 · ReligionKEREN BNEI TORAH: $500 · ReligionCHOFETZ CHAIM HERITAGE FOUNDATION: $250 · ReligionBonei Olam Inc: $1,300 · Human ServicesA Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange: $180 · Human ServicesCHAI LIFELINE INC: $300 · Health
Other$1,010,782Crime & Legal$6,302Religion$6,294Human Services$1,480Health$300

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 budgetTHE ALEPH INSTITUTE INC: $6,302 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetChevrah Lomdei Mishnah Inc: $4,294 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetBonei Olam Inc: $1,300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetKEREN HASHVIIS INC: $1,250 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $300 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCHOFETZ CHAIM HERITAGE FOUNDATION: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetA Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRIVKAH LAUFER BIKUR CHOLIM: $100 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 THE ALEPH INSTITUTE INC ↗
  • Who funds Chevrah Lomdei Mishnah Inc ↗
  • Who funds Bonei Olam Inc ↗
  • Who funds KEREN HASHVIIS INC ↗

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 FundNY21.5× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · The Moshe & Tamar Schwartz Family Foundation · The Ojc Fund · Yisroel Aryeh and Leib Foundation · Allen I Gross Charitable Foundation · CSP Foundation · The Nathan and Marilyn Silberman Fdn · Moses and Miriam Vogel Charitable Foundation Tr · The Fishoff Family Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Sam and Judith Freier Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Sam and Judith Freier Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • The Aleph Institute Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get 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 · 0–5%
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.

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 57 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 Sam and Judith Freier’s filings →

More from the funding graph