Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Afh 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.

$296k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$207k
Largest
01What it funds
0177% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Religion$1.3MPhilanthropy$88kHealth$24kHuman Services$15kArts & Culture$10kInternational$4kOther$0
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $88k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $207k
$21,800
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
VARIOUS CHARITIES$207,242
YESHIVA TORAH VADAATH$28,600
CONGREGATION AHAVAS TZDOKAH VCHESED$21,800
The Donors Fund$20,000
YESHIVA OHR YITZCHOK$18,000
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 (FY17–17, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, 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%OUR PLACE IN NEW YORK INC: $5k → 17%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.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.8M · 14 repeat orgs$489k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +96% since the first grant, against +20% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
40

Total granted

$2.8M
$461k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+96%
+20%

Still filing today

21%
30%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $29k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
ReligionPhilanthropyEducationHealthHuman ServicesOther
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

  • VC
    VARIOUS CHARITIES
    7× · 2018–2024 · $1.1M
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    7× · 2017–2023 · $665k
  • CA
    CONGREGATION AHAVAS TZDOKAH VCHESED INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $237k

Funded once

  • MY
    MIKVAH YISROEL OF FLATBUSH
    one grant, 2019 · $36k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $30k
  • KH
    KEREN HASHVIIS INC
    one grant, 2021 · $30k · revenue -89%
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
Zichron Meshilem Feish Inc

Provides finacial assistance to needy individuals and to religious, charitable organizations

—
2
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
3
Chasdei Yetev Lev Inc

Provide financial assistance to needy individuals, and to religious, educational, and charitable organizations in us and abroad.

—
4
Birchas Yaakov Kollel Inc

Maintain communal and charitable affairs in accordance with the tradition of the orthodox jewish faith

—
5
Yeshivat Leluv of Jerusalem Inc

Charitable work to help people in need

—
6
Tzemach Yifroch Foundation
—
7
Yeshivas Toras Zev Inc

The purpose of this organization is to support indigent torah scholars and their families by providing stipends and additional funds at jewish holiday times.

Religion
8
Yeshiva Yismach Moshe

Raise funds for religious and educational institutions in the state of israel, and to provide funds to needy individuals in the state of israel.

International
9
Zichron Chaim Avraham Foundation
Philanthropy
10
Keren Hayeshivot Fund Inc

Keren hayeshivot fund supports religious institutions of higher education in the united states and israel to raise the level of torah and halachic observance in the sephardic orthodox jewish community.

Philanthropy
11
Talmud Torah Tzfat Inc

We make grants to support orthodox jewish education.

Religion
12
Keren Imrei Yosef Ohr Shalom

To make grants to religious and charitable organizations.

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Keren Hashviis Inc; the most unlike its peers is Zichron Eliyahu 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

17 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. 17 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
11/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

VARIOUS CHARITIES: $1,140,556 · OtherVARIOUS CHARITIESIndividual grant recipient: $665,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCONGREGATION AHAVAS TZDOKAH VCHESED INC: $237,300 · OtherCONGREGATION AHAVAS TZDOKAH VCHESED INCCONG CHASDEI LEV: $175,000 · OtherCONG CHASDEI LEVBETH MEDRASH GOVOHA: $117,000 · Other+36 more: $669,940 · Other+36 moreYESHIVA OHR YITZCHOK: $133,000 · ReligionKEREN HASHVIIS INC: $30,000 · ReligionTZUR FOUNDATION INC: $18,000 · ReligionZICHRON ELIYAHU INC: $9,700 · Religion+3 more: $10,500 · ReligionTHE FLATBUSH COMMUNITY FUND INC co BERNATH & ROSENBERG PC: $43,000 · PhilanthropyAmerican Commitee for Ahavas Torah Inc: $25,400 · PhilanthropyDONORS FUND INC: $20,000 · PhilanthropyKEREN GEMILAS CHASODIM FOUNDATION CO READ PROPERTY GROUP: $3,600 · PhilanthropyCHAI LIFELINE INC: $18,500 · HealthKEREN EZER LNEFESH: $5,000 · HealthJEM INC: $10,000 · EducationTALMUDIC RESEARCH CENTER OF NORTHERN NEW JERSEY: $3,600 · EducationOUR PLACE IN NY INC: $5,000 · Human Services
Other$3,004,796Religion$201,200Philanthropy$92,000Health$23,500Education$13,600Human Services$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetYESHIVA OHR YITZCHOK: $133,000 over 7y, 0.7% of budgetTHE FLATBUSH COMMUNITY FUND INC co BERNATH & ROSENBERG PC: $43,000 over 2y, 7.6% of budgetKEREN HASHVIIS INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAmerican Commitee for Ahavas Torah Inc: $25,400 over 2y, 3.1% of budgetDONORS FUND INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA: $20,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $18,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTZUR FOUNDATION INC: $18,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetZICHRON ELIYAHU INC: $9,700 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetKEREN EZER LNEFESH: $5,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetOUR PLACE IN NY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMINCHAS ASHER FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetTALMUDIC RESEARCH CENTER OF NORTHERN NEW JERSEY: $3,600 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetKEREN GEMILAS CHASODIM FOUNDATION CO READ PROPERTY GROUP: $3,600 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBOARD OF JEWISH EDUCATION INC: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLEV BEREL INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% 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 YESHIVA OHR YITZCHOK ↗
  • Who funds THE FLATBUSH COMMUNITY FUND INC co BERNATH & ROSENBERG PC ↗
  • Who funds KEREN HASHVIIS INC ↗
  • Who funds American Commitee for Ahavas Torah Inc ↗
  • Who funds DONORS FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds AGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA ↗
  • Who funds CHAI LIFELINE INC ↗
  • Who funds TZUR FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds JEM INC ↗
  • Who funds ZICHRON ELIYAHU 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 FundNY36.6× affinity19 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · The Basch Family Foundation · Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Malchus Foundation · The Jimmy and Berta Khezrie Charitable Foundation · Zichron Yechiel Mechel Foundation · Senior Community Services Inc · Allen I Gross Charitable Foundation · Regina Goldwasser 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 The Afh Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Afh Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 60%0%1%3%5%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
    6get no government money at all
    3report 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 The Afh Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Afh 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 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Afh’s filings →

    More from the funding graph