Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Horomoh Foundation

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.

$218k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$204k
Largest
01What it funds
0158% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Religion$563kHealth$53kPhilanthropy$15kHuman Services$644Education$536Food & Nutrition$180Public Benefit$136Environment$36Other$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $13k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $204k
$3,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$1k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MACHNEH RAV TOV$204,300
VARIOUS CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER 1500 DOLLARS$7,168
ZICHRON BINYAMIN$3,000
THE DONORS FUND$1,800
CONG RAV LEHOSHIA$1,500
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 (FY19–21, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Ahavas Tzedakos: $180 → 11%Atime: $243 → 20%ATIME: $123 → 20%ATime: $36 → 20%Bonei Olam: $180 → 20%Bonei Olam: $180 → 20%Bonei Olam: $72 → 20%Toras Moshe: $500 → 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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$738k · 16 repeat orgs$363k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +206% since the first grant, against +1% for those funded once.

16 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
112

Total granted

$738k
$363k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+206%
+1%

Still filing today

13%
12%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
ReligionHuman ServicesHealthEducationPublic BenefitInternationalOther
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

  • CR
    Congregation Rav Lehoshia Inc
    6× · 2020–2025 · $26k · revenue ×53
  • BO
    Bonei Olam Inc
    3× · 2019–2021 · $432 · revenue +160%
  • AT
    A Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange
    3× · 2019–2021 · $402 · revenue +206%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2019 · $100k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $75k
  • CR
    Camp Rav Tov D'satmar
    one grant, 2018 · $50k
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
Chasdei Yetev Lev Inc

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

—
2
Zichron Meshilem Feish Inc

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

—
3
Mifal Tzedaka Vchesed Chasdei Aharo N Inc

Provide financial assistance to torah and talmudic scholars, as well as to other needy individuals and other organizations that work to promote these purposes.

Philanthropy
4
Toras Chaim Inc

To give grants to religious & educational institutions.

Religion
5
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

—
6
Shaarei Teshouva Vechaim

To promote torah study

Philanthropy
7
Zera Koidesh Inc

To award financial grants to religios orthodox jewish organizations and to help by financial means, the needy, sick and disabled people.

—
8
Hatzolah Tosh Inc

Providing financial assistance to emergency organizations as well as other charitable, educational, and religious organizations worldwide.

Philanthropy
9
Zichron Moshe Elihu Tzedoka Fund
Philanthropy
10
Tzidkas Chaim Vleah Foundation Inc
—
11
Beis Yosef Chaim Inc

To provide financial assistance to religious and charitable organizations worldwide to help them continue their activities.

Philanthropy
12
Chaverim Israel Family Services Inc

To provide medical support to families in need

Employment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tomchei Tzedaka Corp; the most unlike its peers is Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation. 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

18 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. 18 of the 129 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/18
Grantees still filing
12/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONGREGATION MACHNEH RAV TOV INC DBA CAMP RAV TOV: $544,336 · OtherCONGREGATION MACHNEH RAV TOV INC DBA CAMP RAV TOVCONG DIVREI YOEL DSATMAR INC: $106,038 · OtherCONG DIVREI YOEL DSATMAR INCIndividual grant recipient: $100,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $75,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCamp Rav Tov D'satmar: $50,000 · OtherCharity Ex PHGS London: $50,000 · OtherVarious contributions under 1500 dollars: $44,162 · Other+106 more: $96,346 · Other+106 moreCongregation Rav Lehoshia Inc: $25,694 · ReligionTZUR FOUNDATION INC: $3,000 · ReligionKOLLEL TORAH TEMIMAH INC: $1,750 · Religion+2 more: $114 · ReligionDONORS FUND INC: $17,160 · PhilanthropyBNOS BRACHA INC: $1,200 · EducationSTEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION: $500 · EducationTORAS MOSHE INC: $500 · Human ServicesBonei Olam Inc: $432 · Human ServicesA Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange: $402 · Human ServicesAHAVAS TZEDOKOS CORP: $180 · Human ServicesBIKUR CHOLIM INC: $1,400 · HealthCHAI LIFELINE INC: $72 · Health+1 more: $36 · HealthVYAZREIM INC: $100 · Public Benefit
Other$1,065,882Religion$30,558Philanthropy$17,160Education$1,700Human Services$1,514Health$1,508Public Benefit$100

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 budgetCongregation Rav Lehoshia Inc: $25,694 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetDONORS FUND INC: $17,160 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetTZUR FOUNDATION INC: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKOLLEL TORAH TEMIMAH INC: $1,750 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetBIKUR CHOLIM INC: $1,400 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBNOS BRACHA INC: $1,200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSTEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBonei Olam Inc: $432 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetA Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange: $402 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetAHAVAS TZEDOKOS CORP: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVYAZREIM INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetChayenu Inc: $78 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLECHEIRIS ORGANIZATION INC: $72 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $72 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTOMCHEI TZEDAKA CORP: $36 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetREFUAH HELPLINE INCDBA REFUAH RESOURCES: $36 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTOV VCHESED FOUNDATION INC: $12 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 Congregation Rav Lehoshia Inc ↗
  • Who funds DONORS FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds TZUR FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds KOLLEL TORAH TEMIMAH INC ↗
  • Who funds BIKUR CHOLIM INC ↗
  • Who funds BNOS BRACHA INC ↗
  • Who funds TORAS MOSHE INC ↗
  • Who funds STEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS 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.

The Ojc FundNY32.6× affinity17 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Lchayim Foundation Inc · Donors Fund Inc · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · The Ohr Yitzchok Family Foundation · The Strasbourg Foundation · Mkz Charity Foundation Inc · Jacob and Malka Fischer Foundation · Moses and Miriam Vogel Charitable Foundation Tr · S&E Foundation · Jewish Communal Fund · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management 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 Horomoh Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Horomoh Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 40%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 9%
  • Bnos Bracha Inc: 9% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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 129 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Horomoh’s filings →

More from the funding graph