· Private foundation
Sol E Betesh & Sons Foundation Inc
Its FY2021 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
Read this first · the figures below need context
99% of Sol E Betesh & Sons Foundation Inc’s FY2021 grant dollars went to Jewish Communal Fund, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2021 names 1 organization directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2020, the last year Sol E Betesh & Sons Foundation Inc named its own grantees at scale: 6 organizations, $4k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 44% of SOL E BETESH & SONS FOUNDATION INC’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE | $2,600 |
| MAGEN AVRAHAM FUND | $501 |
| CHABAD AT DREXEL UNIVERSITY | $500 |
| SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY CENTER | $234 |
| CONGREGATION TIFERES TORAH INC | $101 |
| ROFEH CHOLIM CANCER SOCIETY | $101 |
| HEICHAL HATORAH | $101 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–19, $174) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 35% of Sol E Betesh & Sons Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
12 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2020, 10 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call). Read against FY2020, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2021, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $205 went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- CACHABAD AT DREXEL UNIVERSITY4× · 2017–2020 · $2k
- MAMAGEN AVRAHAM FUND4× · 2017–2020 · $1k · revenue -22%
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVAT NACHALAT YOSSEF2× · 2017–2018 · $1k · revenue -33%
Funded once
- MDMAGEN DAVID YESHIVAHone grant, 2019 · $12k
- YBYESHIVAS BEIS TSVI YAAKOVone grant, 2017 · $5k
- KDKETER DAVID (RABBI SHIMON KATZ SHLITA)one grant, 2019 · $4k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Religious Teaching
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Yeshivat Shaare Torah Inc and the most unlike its peers is Magen Avraham Fund. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 28 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 10% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
28 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 28 of the 77 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds JEWISH COMMUNAL FUND ↗
- Who funds Chabad Torah Center ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ↗
- Who funds LIDYA CHAMI HESED FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds LEV ECHAD INC ↗
- Who funds MAGEN AVRAHAM FUND ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVAT NACHALAT YOSSEF ↗
- Who funds ALBERT MISSRY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds P T O P & V INC ↗
- Who funds SEPHARDIC INSTITUTE SEPHARDIC INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED LEARNING ↗
- Who funds NAOMI'S LEGACY INC ↗
- Who funds STATE TROOPERS COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds HEICHAL HATORAH ↗
- Who funds ROFEH CHOLIM CANCER SOCIETY INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · The Setton Foundation · Jack D Cohen Foundation Inc · The Amin and Lillian Adjmi Foundation · Ralph J Harary Foundation Inc · Marbeh Shalom Foundation Inc · The Jimmy and Berta Khezrie Charitable Foundation · Joseph Jack Sitt 1986 - Charitable Trust · Samuel & Mollie Jemal Foundation Co Jem Realty · E R G Foundation · The Howard Hoffman & Sons Foundation Inc
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Sol E Betesh & Sons Foundation Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Chai 4EVER Inc — 2% of income from government
- Heichal Hatorah — 1% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Sol E Betesh & Sons Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Sol E Betesh & Sons Foundation Inc 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.