· Private foundation
The Charles and Brenda Saka Family Foundation C/O Charles Saka
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
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 85% of THE CHARLES AND BRENDA SAKA FAMILY FOUNDATION C/O CHARLES SAKA’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.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k21 grants · $108k
- $10k–50k14 grants · $225k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $335k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| HILLEL YESHIVA | $225,000 |
| CONGREGATION MAGEN DAVID OF WEST DEAL | $58,404 |
| ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVED LESS THAN 3000 SCHEDULE AVAILABLE | $51,121 |
| KEREN HAYESHIVOT TRUST | $32,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $26,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $25,000 |
| SEPHARDIC BIKUR HOLIM | $19,800 |
| BARKAI YESHIVAH | $15,800 |
| SEPHARDIC RABBINICAL COLLEGE | $15,000 |
| OHEL SIMCHA SUPER FUND | $13,000 |
| BEIT YAAKOV INC - TURNBERRY SYNAGOGUE | $13,000 |
| MAGEN DAVID YESHIVA | $13,000 |
| MORRIS FRANCO CANCER INSTITUTE | $12,000 |
| BEIT EDMOND SAFRA SYNAGOGUE | $10,350 |
| SYNAGOGUE OF DEAL | $10,000 |
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 (FY17–24, $195k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 99% 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.
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.
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 +66% since the first grant, against +29% for the ones you funded once.
56 repeat relationships — 35 still active in FY2024, 21 since wound down; 3 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, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k 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 HAKETER INSTITUTE I3× · 2017–2021 · $302k · revenue +146% · 67% of their budget
- SCSBH COMMUNITY SERVICE NETWORK INC8× · 2017–2024 · $157k · revenue +82%
- SHSEPHARDIC HERITAGE FOUNDATION INC7× · 2018–2024 · $54k · revenue +71%
Funded once
- JFJERUSALEM FOUNDATION INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +44%
- CRCONGREGATION RODFEI ZEDEKone grant, 2022 · $43k
- FKFOUNDATION KEREN HAYESHIVOT BEIT ELIYAHUone grant, 2023 · $20k
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 School
Congregation beth-el sephardic center of jamaica estates is a religious institution
To operate a high school offering religious instruction and general studies as well as a post high school program of talmudic studies. the school shall be run under the standards of orthodox jewish law and tradition.
Religious Teaching
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.
A post-secondary school offering an educational program in talmudic study
A school-section 170(b)(1)(a)(ii), operating from the preschool pre-k level through high school, and chartered ny the new york state education department and board of regents.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sephardic Community Dayanut Program Inc and the most unlike its peers is Sephardic Heritage Foundation Inc. 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 23 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% 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.
30 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. 30 of the 87 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 HAKETER INSTITUTE I ↗
- Who funds SBH COMMUNITY SERVICE NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds BARKAI FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SEPHARDIC HERITAGE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SAFE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE BRIDGE ACADEMY INC ↗
- Who funds JERUSALEM FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds KEREN HAYESHIVOT TRUST ↗
- Who funds ILAN HIGH SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds THE SPECIAL CHILDREN CENTER ↗
- Who funds SEPHARDIC MIKVEH OF MIDWOOD INC ↗
- Who funds HAHAIM YESHIVAT SHALOM INC ↗
- Who funds SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY DAYANUT PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds KEREN YOM TOV 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: The Amin and Lillian Adjmi Foundation · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · The Howard Hoffman & Sons Foundation Inc · Ralph J Harary Foundation Inc · The Ralph S Gindi Family Foundation · Ic Hessed Foundation · Cabasso Family Foundation · Chehebar Family Foundation · Jewish Communal Fund · Isaac & Marjorie Gindi Foundation Inc · The Setton Foundation · The Mamiye 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 The Charles and Brenda Saka Family Foundation C/O Charles Saka 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.
- Yeshiva Keter Torah Inc — 8% of income from government
- The Special Children Center — 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 Charles and Brenda Saka Family Foundation C/O Charles Saka?
Find your warmest path to The Charles and Brenda Saka Family Foundation C/O Charles Saka 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.