· Private foundation
The Adar 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k37 grants · $152k
- $10k–50k27 grants · $617k
- $50k–250k16 grants · $1.7M
- $250k+5 grants · $1.8M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $538,000 |
| ZICHRON MENACHEM INC | $377,500 |
| AMERICAN FRIEMDS OF YISA BRACHA INC | $312,000 |
| CONGREGATION ZICHRON REFOEL | $292,000 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF NEVEH ZION | $260,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $225,000 |
| YESHIVAS TORAS SIMCHA | $199,800 |
| MESIVTA SHAAREI CHAIM | $160,000 |
| FRIENDS OF MOSDOS KNESES YESHURUN | $130,000 |
| CHAZAK VEMATZ CONGREGATION INC | $122,500 |
| ZICHRON TZVI ELIMELECH | $112,000 |
| AF OF MOSDOS KENESES YESHURUN | $111,000 |
| CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL | $110,000 |
| LEV BEREL INC | $100,000 |
| KEREN HATZEDAKA INC | $87,500 |
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 US giving — 83% of grant dollars ($14M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 17% that went abroad ($2.9M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY20–24, $1.6M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 93% 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.
Beyond the US — 17% of all-years giving ($2.9M)
1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 6% of The Adar Foundation’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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +18% since the first grant, against -19% for the ones you funded once.
82 repeat relationships — 66 still active in FY2024, 16 since wound down; 17 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
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 FY2024, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $586k 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
- AFAmerican Friends of Yisa Bracha Inc5× · 2020–2024 · $1.4M · revenue +138% · 33% of their budget
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF NEVEH ZION5× · 2020–2024 · $955k · revenue +13% · 32% of their budget
- ZTZICHRON TZVI ELIMELECH2× · 2023–2024 · $446k · revenue +137%
Funded once
- CGCONGREGATION GUR ARYEH INSTITUTEone grant, 2021 · $20k
- TJTHE JEWISH LEARNING GROUP INCone grant, 2022 · $18k · revenue -47%
- VHVAAD HARABANIM LEINYANEI TZEDUKAHone grant, 2021 · $17k
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
Support of religious schools in Israel
publish religious books
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mesivta Kesser Torah of Baltimore Inc and the most unlike its peers is Camp Extreme D/B/a Project Extreme. 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 21 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% 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.
52 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. 52 of the 131 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 American Friends of Yisa Bracha Inc ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR HEBREW DAY SCHOOLS ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF NEVEH ZION ↗
- Who funds ZICHRON TZVI ELIMELECH ↗
- Who funds LEV BEREL INC ↗
- Who funds RABBI CHAIM KOWALSKY MEMORIAL AHAVAS YISRAEL FUND INC ↗
- Who funds ALVIN S MINTZES HATZALAH OF BALTIMORE INC ↗
- Who funds SHEMIRAS SEDORIM INC ↗
- Who funds Binyan Yisroel Inc ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF BE'ER HATORAHINC ↗
- Who funds Central Fund of Israel ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF KAHILAS KAMENITZ ↗
- Who funds CAMP EXTREME D/B/A PROJECT EXTREME ↗
- Who funds KEREN HATZEDAKA INC ↗
- Who funds TORAH ORE SEMINARY ↗
- Who funds MOSDOT RASHI ↗
- Who funds MESORAH INC ↗
- Who funds Jewish Teen Advancement Program 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: Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore · Netzach Foundation · The Ojc Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Donors Fund Inc · Foundation for the Preservation & Perpetuation of Torah Laws & Customs · The Jmg Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · The Hackerman Foundation Inc · Marbeh Shalom Foundation Inc · The Tzedakah Fund
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 The Adar Foundation 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.
- Mesivta Kesser Torah of Baltimore Inc — 5% 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 The Adar Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Adar 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.