Skip to content
The Eliahou Joseph Shamah and David Shamah Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

The Eliahou Joseph Shamah and David Shamah Foundation Inc

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.

$648k
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$449k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0173% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$986kPhilanthropy$491kHuman Services$49kEducation$13kOther$0
02FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k10 grants · $200k
  • $250k+1 grant · $449k
$20,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BNAI ARAM SOBA$448,900
MISC CONTRIBUTIONS 5000$39,509
Individual grant recipient$27,750
JEWISH COMMUNAL FUND$26,000
Individual grant recipient$23,312
Individual grant recipient$20,000
CONGREGATION BENEI DAVID INC$18,000
MIRRER YESHIVA$13,000
ETZ CHAIM$12,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
COHEN SABAN CHARITABLE TRUST$10,000
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 19%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%OHEL SIMCHA YESHIVA: $16k → 13%CONCEPTS IN TIME: $50k → 17%ETZ CHAIM: $12k → 16%NER MORDECHAI CONGREGATION: $10k → 13%JEWISH COMMUNAL FUND: $36k → 17%BNAI ARAM SOBA: $449k → 20%JEWISH COMMUNAL FUND: $35k → 17%KEREN HAYES: $250k → 20%JEWISH COMMUNAL FUND: $32k → 17%MAGEN DAVID YESHIVAH: $97k → 20%JEWISH COMMUNAL FUND: $30k → 17%MAGEN DAVID YESHIVAH: $86k → 20%JEWISH COMMUNAL FUND: $29k → 17%MISC CONTRIBUTIONS 5000: $71k → 20%JEWISH COMMUNAL FUND: $26k → 17%MISC CONTRIBUTIONS 5000: $51k → 20%JEWISH COMMUNAL FUND: $22k → 17%MISC CONTRIBUTIONS 5000: $46k → 20%MISC CONTRIBUTIONS 5000: $40k → 20%MISC CHARITIES: $29k → 20%MISC CONTRIBUTIONS 5000: $29k → 20%MEGAN DAVID YESHIVA: $20k → 17%YESHIVA ATERET TORA: $28k → 20%BNAI YOSEF EAST: $23k → 20%CONGREGATION BNAI YOSEF: $22k → 20%CONGREGATION BNAI YOSEF: $20k → 20%CONGREGATION BNAI YOSEF: $20k → 20%SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY CENTER: $20k → 20%MISC CONTRIBUTIONS 5000: $19k → 20%CONGREGATION BENEI DAVID INC: $18k → 20%KETER SION CONGREGATION: $15k → 20%Congregation Bnai Yosef: $15k → 20%MIKDASH ELIYAHU: $14k → 20%MIRRER YESHIVA: $13k → 20%MIRRER YESHIVA: $13k → 20%MIRRER YESHIVA: $12k → 20%MIRRER YESHIVA: $12k → 20%Keter Zion: $12k → 20%SUPER FUND RABBI MEYER SAFDIE: $11k → 20%THE JACOB KASSIN CHESSE: $11k → 20%THE JACOB KASSIN CHESSE: $10k → 20%LICKRON MOSHE KOLLEL: $10k → 20%NY SEMINARY: $11k → 20%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ARAM SOBA: $20k → 20%SHIVAT ZION TORAH CENTER: $17k → 20%CONGREGATION ESHEL AVRARAM: $15k → 20%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ARAM SOBA: $10k → 20%YAD YOSEF: $10k → 20%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.

41%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$752k · 12 repeat orgs$1.1M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +115% since the first grant, against +24% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
25

Total granted

$752k
$511k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+115%
+24%

Still filing today

8%
16%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 11% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $552k 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
Youth DevelopmentReligionPhilanthropyEducationInternationalOther
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

  • MC
    MISC CONTRIBUTIONS 5000
    6× · 2019–2024 · $257k
  • MD
    MAGEN DAVID YESHIVAH
    2× · 2017–2018 · $183k
  • CB
    CONGREGATION BNAI YOSEF
    7× · 2017–2023 · $102k

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $250k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $50k
  • MC
    MISC CHARITIES
    one grant, 2018 · $29k
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

6 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. 6 of the 45 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
5/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BNEI ARAM SOBA: $448,900 · OtherBNEI ARAM SOBAMISC CONTRIBUTIONS 5000: $256,670 · OtherMISC CONTRIBUTIONS 5000Individual grant recipient: $250,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientMAGEN DAVID YESHIVAH: $182,800 · OtherMAGEN DAVID YESHIVAHCONGREGATION BNAI YOSEF: $101,893 · OtherCONGREGATION BNAI YOSEF+34 more: $509,748 · Other+34 moreJEWISH COMMUNAL FUND: $219,001 · PhilanthropyJEWISH COMMU…+1 more: $5,000 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN FRIENDS OF ARAM SOBA: $30,000 · ReligionSEPHARDIC COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER INC: $20,000 · Youth DevelopmentAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC: $7,500 · InternationalThe New School: $2,754 · Education
Other$1,750,011Philanthropy$224,001Religion$30,000Youth Development$20,000International$7,500Education$2,754

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 budgetJEWISH COMMUNAL FUND: $219,001 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF ARAM SOBA: $30,000 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetSEPHARDIC COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDANIELLA MOFFSON FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetThe New School: $2,754 over 1y, 0.0% 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 JEWISH COMMUNAL FUND ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ARAM SOBA ↗
  • Who funds SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC ↗
  • Who funds DANIELLA MOFFSON FOUNDATION 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.

Jewish Communal FundJack Adjmi Family Fou…The Maj Franco Family…N'Ve Shalom Foundatio…Reuben J Chehebar Cha…I Chera & Sons Founda…Isaac & Marjorie Gind…The Howard Hoffman & …The Amin and Lillian …The Setton FoundationFidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…
Jewish Communal FundNY17.6× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · The Maj Franco Family Charitable Foundation · N'Ve Shalom Foundation Inc · Reuben J Chehebar Charitable Trust Reuben J Chehebar Trustee · I Chera & Sons Foundation Inc · Isaac & Marjorie Gindi Foundation Inc · The Howard Hoffman & Sons Foundation Inc · The Amin and Lillian Adjmi Foundation · The Setton Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Eliahou Joseph Shamah and David Shamah Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Eliahou Joseph Shamah and David Shamah Foundation Inc. 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%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
    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.

    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 45 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 Eliahou Joseph Shamah and David Shamah’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