Skip to content
The Dr Robert a Behar Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Dr Robert a Behar 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.

$1.3M
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$1.2M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Education$7.9MReligion$205kPublic Safety & Disaster$20kHuman Services$17kInternational$5kScience & Tech$1kOther$0
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $9k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $49k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.2M
$15,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$25k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO$1,195,270
ROBERT M BEREN ACADEMY$50,000
CONGREGATION BETH RAM BAM$34,000
LEV AHARON$15,000
HOUSTON YOUNG JEWISH PROFESSIONALS$5,000
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA$2,500
GEORGE C MARSHALL RESEARCH FOUNDATION$1,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 98% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%NORTHFIELD MOUNT HERMON: $10k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $10k → 22%RELIGIOUS ZIONIST YOUTH MOVEMENT: $5k → 17%HOUSTON YOUNG JEWISH PROFESSIONALS: $7k → 16%NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF SYNAGOGUE YOUTH: $15k → 11%ALLIANCE FOR CHOICE IN EDUCATION: $100k → 12%THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: $1.2M → 14%LEV AHARON: $15k → 6%GEORGE C MARSHALL RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $1k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $3k → 22%LATINOS UNIDOS FUNDACION: $500 → 17%HOUSTON YOUNG JEWISH PROFESSIONALS: $7k → 16%THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: $875k → 14%NSCY: $6k → 17%HOUSTON YOUNG JEWISH PROFESSIONALS: $7k → 16%THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: $553k → 14%NSCY: $5k → 17%HOUSTON YOUNG JEWISH PROFESSIONALS: $5k → 16%THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: $475k → 14%CONGREGATION BETH RAM BAM: $34k → 16%THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: $450k → 14%CONGREGATION BETH RAMBAM: $30k → 16%THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: $376k → 14%CONGREGATION BETH RAMBAM: $22k → 16%THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: $66k → 14%CONGREGATION BETH RAMBAM: $21k → 16%THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: $25k → 14%CONGREGATION BETH RAM BAM: $21k → 16%CONGREGATION BETH RAMBAM: $20k → 16%CONGREGATION BETH RAMBAM: $1k → 16%ROBERT M BEREN ACADEMY: $3.0M → 16%ROBERT M BEREN ACADEMY: $286k → 16%ROBERT M BEREN ACADEMY: $250k → 16%ROBERT M BEREN ACADEMY: $50k → 16%ROBERT M BEREN ACADEMY: $50k → 16%ROBERT M BEREN ACADEMY: $50k → 16%ROBERT M BEREN ACADEMY: $41k → 16%NORTH CYPRESS MEDICAL CENTER: $20k → 16%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.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
NY
MA
PA
NJ
CO
VA
TX
FL
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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$7.9M · 5 repeat orgs$180k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
8

Total granted

$7.9M
$164k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+56%
+95%

Still filing today

40%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $16k 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
EducationInternationalHuman 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

  • University of Chicago
    8× · 2017–2024 · $4.0M · revenue +56%
  • RM
    Robert M Beren Academy
    7× · 2018–2024 · $3.7M · revenue +36% · 45% of their budget
  • CB
    CONGREGATION BETH RAMBAM
    7× · 2017–2024 · $149k

Funded once

  • AF
    ALLIANCE FOR CHOICE IN EDUCATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $100k · revenue +95%
  • NC
    NORTH CYPRESS MEDICAL CENTER
    one grant, 2017 · $20k
  • NC
    NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF SYNAGOGUE YOUTH
    one grant, 2022 · $15k
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 16 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
6/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

University of Chicago: $4,015,239 · EducationUniversity of Chicago+2 more: $112,500 · EducationRobert M Beren Academy: $3,713,940 · OtherRobert M Beren AcademyCONGREGATION BETH RAMBAM: $148,543 · Other+9 more: $106,840 · OtherGENERATION ONE INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesRELIGIOUS ZIONIST YOUTH MOVEMENT BNEI AKIVA OF THE US AND CANADA INC: $5,000 · International
Education$4,127,739Other$3,969,323Human Services$5,000International$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUniversity of Chicago: $4,015,239 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetRobert M Beren Academy: $3,713,940 over 7y, 45% of budgetALLIANCE FOR CHOICE IN EDUCATION: $100,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $12,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGENERATION ONE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetRELIGIOUS ZIONIST YOUTH MOVEMENT BNEI AKIVA OF THE US AND CANADA INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGEORGE C MARSHALL RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $1,000 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 University of Chicago ↗
  • Who funds Robert M Beren Academy ↗
  • Who funds ALLIANCE FOR CHOICE IN EDUCATION ↗
  • Who funds TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ↗
  • Who funds GENERATION ONE INC ↗
  • Who funds RELIGIOUS ZIONIST YOUTH MOVEMENT BNEI AKIVA OF THE US AND CANADA INC ↗
  • Who funds GEORGE C MARSHALL RESEARCH FOUNDATION ↗

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.

Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA6.1× affinity6 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile 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 Dr Robert a Behar Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Dr Robert a Behar Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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.

    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 16 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 Dr Robert a Behar’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home