Skip to content

· Private foundation

Shulem and Chany Mermelstein Foundation

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.

$89k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$26k
Largest
01What it funds
0176% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$412kPhilanthropy$56kRecreation & Sports$5kOther$0
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k4 grants · $22k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $68k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$26,000
The OJC Fund$18,600
Tomchei Torah$12,900
Camp Hasc$10,000
Individual grant recipient$8,750
United Talmudical Academy$6,750
Matbia Charities$3,568
Varoius$2,710
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 (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 94% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%CONG ZICHRON REB: $28k → 14%Chasdei Uvois: $36k → 16%Congregation Beth Baruch: $26k → 20%CONG SANZ OF LAKEWOOD: $13k → 11%CAMP CHAVERIM: $5k → 8%Keren Gershon Dov: $10k → 14%CONG ADAS BNEI YOSEF: $5k → 20%Cong Sanz of Lakewood: $9k → 11%Keren Gershon Dov: $9k → 14%Zichron Shlomo: $30k → 20%CONG SANZ OF LAKEWOOD: $5k → 11%BAIS PINCHOS TRISK INC: $8k → 14%Tzidkos Eretz Hakodesh: $30k → 20%Kolel Sdei Chaim: $5k → 11%CONG KHAL TORATH CHAIM VIZNITZ: $5k → 14%The OJC Fund: $19k → 20%Congregation Beth David: $4k → 14%OJC Fund: $10k → 20%Congregation Beth David: $3k → 14%Camp Hasc: $10k → 20%THE AIRMONT SHUL: $3k → 14%OJC Fund: $7k → 20%OJC Fund: $6k → 20%MIKVAH YISROEL DSHIKUN SQUARE: $100k → 14%OJC Fund: $6k → 20%MIKVAH YISROEL DSHIKUN SQUARE: $31k → 14%The OJC Fund: $4k → 20%MIKVAH YISROEL DSHIKUN SQUARE: $17k → 14%Cong Toldos Yakov Yosef: $3k → 20%Yeshiva Degel Hatorah: $14k → 14%Matbia Charities: $4k → 20%Yeshiva Degel Hatorah: $13k → 14%Prospect Park Yeshiva Inc: $4k → 20%Yeshiva Tzoin Yosef: $10k → 14%ATERES NAAVA: $2k → 20%Varoius: $7k → 14%Congregation Tomchei Torah: $37k → 20%United Talmudical Academy: $7k → 14%Tomchei Torah: $30k → 20%YESHIVA TZOIN YOSEF PUPA: $5k → 14%Congregation Tomchei Torah: $13k → 20%Varoius: $3k → 14%Tomchei Torah: $13k → 20%TALMUD TORAH ADAS YEREIM: $2k → 14%Congregation Tomchei Torah: $12k → 20%TALMUD TORAH ADAS YEREIM: $2k → 14%Congregation Tomchei Torah: $10k → 20%VARIOUS: $2k → 14%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.

61%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$356k · 9 repeat orgs$228k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
18

Total granted

$356k
$182k

Still filing today

0%
6%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 34% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $46k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Recreation & SportsReligionPhilanthropyOther
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

  • MY
    MIKVAH YISROEL DSHIKUN SQUARE
    5× · 2018–2022 · $148k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    4× · 2019–2022 · $72k
  • TT
    TOMCHEI TORAH
    2× · 2023–2024 · $43k

Funded once

  • CU
    CHASDEI UVOIS
    one grant, 2023 · $36k
  • ZS
    Zichron Shlomo
    one grant, 2023 · $30k
  • TE
    TZIDKAS ERETZ HAKODESH
    one grant, 2023 · $30k
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
04the grantee network

4 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. 4 of the 32 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)
4/4
Grantees still filing
2/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MIKVAH YISROEL DSHIKUN SQUARE: $147,500 · OtherMIKVAH YISROEL DSHIKUN SQUAREIndividual grant recipient: $71,823 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTOMCHEI TORAH: $43,000 · OtherTOMCHEI TORAHCHASDEI UVOIS: $36,000 · OtherCHASDEI UVOISZichron Shlomo: $30,000 · OtherTZIDKAS ERETZ HAKODESH: $30,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $28,000 · OtherYESHIVA DEGEL HATORAH INC: $26,850 · OtherCONG SANZ OF LAKEWOOD INC: $26,800 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $26,000 · Other+18 more: $99,030 · Other+18 moreTHE OJC FUND: $52,100 · EducationTHE OJC F…CAMP HASC INC: $10,000 · ReligionCAMP CHAVERIM INC DBA REYUS: $5,000 · Recreation & SportsMATBIA CHARITIES INC: $3,568 · Philanthropy
Other$565,003Education$52,100Religion$10,000Recreation & Sports$5,000Philanthropy$3,568

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE OJC FUND: $52,100 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetCAMP HASC INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCAMP CHAVERIM INC DBA REYUS: $5,000 over 2y, 0.8% 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 OJC FUND ↗
  • Who funds CAMP HASC INC ↗
  • Who funds CAMP CHAVERIM INC DBA REYUS ↗
  • Who funds MATBIA CHARITIES 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.

The Ojc FundNY23.1× affinity10 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile 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 Shulem and Chany Mermelstein Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Shulem and Chany Mermelstein Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 32 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 Shulem and Chany Mermelstein’s filings →

    More from the funding graph