Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

The Avital Family Charity Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$34k
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What you fund
0150% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172025.

Religion$222kHealth$14kArts & Culture$7kYouth Development$4kInternational$2kHuman Services$355Other$0
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k12 grants · $19k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $15k
$1,212
Median grant
5
States reached
$22k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Kol Yaakov$15,207
Individual grant recipient$4,680
Individual grant recipient$4,346
Individual grant recipient$3,376
Neeman Foundation$2,160
MT SINAI Health Foundation$1,875
Chabad Israeli Center$1,212
Breslev Center$730
Keren Hatzedaka Inc$278
Individual grant recipient$198
Individual grant recipient$104
Individual grant recipient$38
Individual grant recipient$36
02The need
03

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 — 61% of grant dollars ($301k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 39% that went abroad ($194k) is mapped below.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY23–25, $355) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%Keren Hatzedaka Inc: $278 → 11%Keren Hatzedaka Inc: $77 → 11%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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 — 39% of all-years giving ($194k)

6 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
Israel$134k · 23 grants
Panama$30k · 3 grants
Mexico$16k · 5 grants
Bolivia$13k · 3 grants
Belize$2k · 2 grants
Kenya$180 · 1 grant

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 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$408k · 22 repeat orgs$87k to everyone else

22 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

22
17

Total granted

$408k
$79k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+64%

Still filing today

9%
18%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 77% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $8k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’21’22’23’24’25
HealthPhilanthropyCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentInternationalOther

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

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2021–2023 · $56k
  • IK
    Im Kol Ha Lev Le Kol Ehad
    5× · 2018–2024 · $54k
  • EI
    EZRAT ISRAEL INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $46k

Funded once

  • BM
    BEIT MASHIACH LA
    one grant, 2023 · $30k
  • CB
    Chabad Boquette Inc
    one grant, 2022 · $17k
  • I
    IDF
    one grant, 2023 · $17k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field
04the grantee network

7 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 7 of the 45 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
5/7
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Individual grant recipient — $55,870 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIm Kol Ha Lev Le Kol Ehad — $53,867 · OtherIm Kol Ha Lev Le Kol EhadEZRAT ISRAEL INC — $46,140 · OtherEZRAT ISRAEL INCKol Yaakov — $36,917 · OtherKol YaakovBEIT MASHIACH LA — $30,000 · OtherBEIT MASHIACH LAIndividual grant recipient — $29,529 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient — $26,710 · OtherIndividual grant recipientChabad of Medellin Cedarhurst — $24,679 · OtherChabad Boquette Inc — $17,493 · OtherIndividual grant recipient — $17,474 · OtherIDF — $17,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient — $16,360 · Other+26 more — $113,203 · Other+26 moreIsrael Next Generation INC — $4,000 · Youth DevelopmentNE EMAN FOUNDATION USA — $2,160 · InternationalMt Sinai Health Care Foundation — $1,875 · Health+1 more — $18 · HealthFRIENDS OF CHABAD LUBAVITCH BOLIVIA — $461 · Philanthropy770 MOSHIACH COMMUNITY CENTER INC — $360 · Community ImprovementKEREN HATZEDAKA INC — $355 · Human Services
Other$485,242Youth Development$4,000International$2,160Health$1,893Philanthropy$461Community Improvement$360Human Services$355

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetIsrael Next Generation INC — $4,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMt Sinai Health Care Foundation — $1,875 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF CHABAD LUBAVITCH BOLIVIA — $461 over 2y, 0.1% of budget770 MOSHIACH COMMUNITY CENTER INC — $360 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKEREN HATZEDAKA INC — $355 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY HEALTH — $18 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
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 Israel Next Generation INC
  • Who funds NE EMAN FOUNDATION USA
  • Who funds Mt Sinai Health Care Foundation
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF CHABAD LUBAVITCH BOLIVIA
  • Who funds 770 MOSHIACH COMMUNITY CENTER INC
  • Who funds KEREN HATZEDAKA 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.

Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA4.1× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Avital Family Charity 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.

2024
2021222324
no gov · 30%0%1%3%5%your share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from governmentmedian 3%
  • 770 Moshiach Community Center Inc3% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
typical government reliance, FY2024

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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 45 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph