Skip to content
SMK Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

SMK Foundation

To encourage Jewish education

$200k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$124k
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, FY2019 to 2025.

Religion$559kEducation$74kHuman Services$53kPhilanthropy$14kInternational$10k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $77k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $124k
$40,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$40k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Magen Abraham of Brooklyn$123,624
Yesodot HaTorah$40,000
SMK Foundation$36,915
Magen Giborrim Inc$8,000
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 (FY24–24, $53k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%American Friends of Shifra Inc: $53k → 13%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.

52%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$367k · 7 repeat orgs$343k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +8% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
22

Total granted

$367k
$303k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+8%
0%

Still filing today

57%
41%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $40k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’24’25
ReligionInternationalEducationHuman ServicesPhilanthropyOther
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

  • MA
    MAGEN AVRAHAM OF BROOKLYN
    6× · 2019–2025 · $216k
  • SF
    SMK Foundation
    2× · 2024–2025 · $63k · revenue -50% · 34% of their budget
  • SC
    SEPHARDIC CONGREGATION OF HAR HA-LEBANON
    4× · 2019–2023 · $24k

Funded once

  • AF
    American Friends of Shifra Inc
    one grant, 2024 · $53k · revenue 0%
  • OG
    OTHER GRANTS LESS THAN 5000 EACH
    one grant, 2019 · $48k
  • GC
    GEMILOS CHASODIM CHASDEI MOSHE
    2× · 2022–2023 · $36k
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
American Friends of Amshinover Yeshiva Jerusalem Inc

Support of religious schools in Israel

International
2
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
3
American Friends of Heichal Yerushalayim Inc

The funding of heichal yerushalayim yeshiva(religious shcool) to facilitate and promote judaic studies.

Youth Development
4
American Friends of Yeshiva Gedolah Matisyahu Inc

To award scholarships and grants to students from the United States attending Yeshivas Gedolah Matisyahu in the State of Israel

Education
5
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
—
6
American Friends of Yeshivat Nachalat Yossef

The organization will provide financial assistance to educational institutions that promote the observance of the jewish religion, its laws and traditions, and sacred texts, including yeshivat nachalat yossef, located in jerusalem, israel.

Religion
7
American Friends of Yeshiva Ner Aharon

The organization's primary activity is that of raising funds primarily for distribution to israeli institutions of higher learning. the funds may be distributed to other institutions organized exclusively for religious, charitable and…

Religion
8
Ohr Olam Corp

publish religious books

Religion
9
American Friends of Yeshivat Hakotel Inc

To support religious, charitable, scientific, literary and/or educational programs

Education
10
American Friends of Yeshivat Chochmat Shlomo

Charity

Religion
11
American Friends of Kol Yehuda Inc

Jewish Religious charitable Educational and scientific studies

Religion
12
American Friends of Amaleh Shel Torah Inc

None

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of Rabbinical College Netiv Hadaat Inc; the most unlike its peers is Hebron Fund 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

14 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. 14 of the 30 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/14
Grantees still filing
6/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MAGEN AVRAHAM OF BROOKLYN: $216,071 · OtherMAGEN AVRAHAM OF BROOKLYNOTHER GRANTS LESS THAN 5000 EACH: $48,077 · OtherOTHER GRANTS LESS THAN 5000 EACHYESODOT HATORAH: $40,000 · OtherYESODOT HATORAHGEMILOS CHASODIM CHASDEI MOSHE: $36,000 · OtherGEMILOS CHASODIM CHASDEI MOSHESEPHARDIC CONGREGATION OF HAR HA-LEBANON: $23,789 · OtherBET YAAKOV OROT SARAH INC: $20,830 · OtherATERET TORAH CENTER: $18,000 · OtherYESHIVA KOL YAAKOV: $18,000 · Other+8 more: $58,368 · Other+8 moreSMK Foundation: $62,577 · ReligionSMK FoundationMAGEN GIBORRIM INC: $14,000 · ReligionMAGEN GIBORRIM IN…YESHIVAT OHEL TORAH: $12,517 · ReligionYESHIVAT OHEL TOR…YESHIVAT DARCHE ERES INC: $10,101 · ReligionYESHIVAT DARCHE E…KEREN YOM TOV INC: $7,200 · ReligionKEREN YOM TOV INCFRIENDS OF MOSDOT NAHALAT YTZHAQ: $5,000 · ReligionAmerican Friends of Shifra Inc: $53,000 · Human ServicesAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YIRGUN YRA: $10,000 · InternationalChabad Lubavitch Hospitality Center Eshel Hachnosas Orchim: $6,000 · InternationalAMERICAN FRIENDS OF SUCATH DAVID INC: $6,000 · InternationalAMERICAN FRIENDS OF ATERET COHANIM INC: $5,000 · InternationalHKY KOL YAAKAB INC: $17,200 · EducationAMERICAN FRIENDS OF RABBINICAL COLLEGE NETIV HADAAT INC: $8,500 · EducationHEBRON FUND INC: $14,000 · Philanthropy
Other$479,135Religion$111,395Human Services$53,000International$27,000Education$25,700Philanthropy$14,000

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 budgetSMK Foundation: $62,577 over 2y, 34% of budgetAmerican Friends of Shifra Inc: $53,000 over 1y, 5.2% of budgetHKY KOL YAAKAB INC: $17,200 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetHEBRON FUND INC: $14,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetMAGEN GIBORRIM INC: $14,000 over 3y, 7.4% of budgetYESHIVAT OHEL TORAH: $12,517 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetYESHIVAT DARCHE ERES INC: $10,101 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YIRGUN YRA: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF RABBINICAL COLLEGE NETIV HADAAT INC: $8,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetChabad Lubavitch Hospitality Center Eshel Hachnosas Orchim: $6,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF SUCATH DAVID INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetFRIENDS OF MOSDOT NAHALAT YTZHAQ: $5,000 over 2y, 0.9% 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 SMK Foundation ↗
  • Who funds American Friends of Shifra Inc ↗
  • Who funds HKY KOL YAAKAB INC ↗
  • Who funds HEBRON FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds MAGEN GIBORRIM INC ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVAT OHEL TORAH ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVAT DARCHE ERES INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YIRGUN YRA ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF RABBINICAL COLLEGE NETIV HADAAT INC ↗
  • Who funds KEREN YOM TOV INC ↗
  • Who funds Chabad Lubavitch Hospitality Center Eshel Hachnosas Orchim ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF SUCATH DAVID INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF MOSDOT NAHALAT YTZHAQ ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ATERET COHANIM 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 FundJack Adjmi Family Fou…The Howard Hoffman & …The Amin and Lillian …The Ojc FundKeren Yom Tov IncMary & Abe Sutton Fou…Marbeh Shalom Foundat…The Setton FoundationOhel Rachel Ve Leah F…Mattan Basseter IncThe Maj Franco Family…
Jewish Communal FundNY37.3× affinity23 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · The Howard Hoffman & Sons Foundation Inc · The Amin and Lillian Adjmi Foundation · The Ojc Fund · Keren Yom Tov Inc · Mary & Abe Sutton Foundation · Marbeh Shalom Foundation Inc · The Setton Foundation · Ohel Rachel Ve Leah Foundation Inc · Mattan Basseter Inc · The Maj Franco Family Charitable 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 SMK Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from SMK Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%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
    0get 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to SMK Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to SMK Foundation 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 30 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on SMK’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