Skip to content
The Markus & Helen Orbach Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

The Markus & Helen Orbach Foundation Inc

Its FY2022 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$72k
Granted FY2021
7
Grants FY2021
2
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2021.

Religion$248kHuman Services$2kHealth$1kYouth Development$360Philanthropy$300Arts & Culture$200International$136Public Safety & Disaster$35
02FY2021 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2021

  • Under $10k5 grants · $12k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$2,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$2k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NORTH SHORE HEBREW ACADEMY$50,000
HATZALAH$10,000
ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA$7,000
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF SHAARE ZEDEK$2,000
AISHEL HOUSE$2,000
MANHATTAN BEACH JEWISH CENTER$500
CHAI LIFELINE$118
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 (FY18–19, $600) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%LUSTGARTEN FOUNDATION: $500 → 6%LUSTGARTEN FOUNDATION: $100 → 6%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.

54%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$137k · 9 repeat orgs$116k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2021, 6 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
10

Total granted

$137k
$101k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+8%
+101%

Still filing today

56%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $14k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21
InternationalReligionHuman ServicesPhilanthropyHealthOther
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

  • NS
    NORTH SHORE HEBREW ACADEMY
    3× · 2017–2021 · $88k · revenue +71%
  • ZO
    ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA
    4× · 2017–2021 · $9k · revenue +52%
  • RC
    Rachels Children Reclamation Foundation
    3× · 2018–2020 · $300 · revenue +8%

Funded once

  • TB
    THE BEACH AT MINYAN AT THE SUMMER SHUL
    one grant, 2020 · $100k
  • FC
    FRIENDSHIP CIRCLE
    one grant, 2020 · $360
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ATERET COHANIM INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $300 · revenue +101%
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
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
2
Zichron Chaim Avraham Foundation
Philanthropy
3
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
—
4
Sherit Isroel
—
5
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
6
Zichron Chaim Meir Foundation
Philanthropy
7
American Friends of Torat Eliyahu
Philanthropy
8
American Friends of Amshinover Yeshiva Jerusalem Inc

Support of religious schools in Israel

International
9
American Friends of Even Yisroel Charitable Foundation
Philanthropy
10
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
11
Zechut Avot Foundation
Philanthropy
12
Ziv Israel Association
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Emunah of America Inc; the most unlike its peers is Rachels Children Reclamation 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

10 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. 10 of the 23 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)
10/10
Grantees still filing
7/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE BEACH AT MINYAN AT THE SUMMER SHUL: $100,000 · OtherTHE BEACH AT MINYAN AT THE SUMMER SHULNORTH SHORE HEBREW ACADEMY: $87,500 · OtherNORTH SHORE HEBREW ACADEMYMANHATTAN BEACH JEWISH CENTER: $25,560 · OtherMANHATTAN BEACH JEWISH CENTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF YOUNG ISRAEL: $12,860 · OtherHATZALAH: $10,000 · Other+10 more: $5,489 · OtherZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA: $9,100 · Religion+1 more: $180 · ReligionMARC LUSTGARTEN PANCREATIC CANCER FOUNDATION: $600 · Human ServicesAMERICAN FRIENDS OF ATERET COHANIM INC: $300 · InternationalAMIT CHILDREN INC: $100 · InternationalEMUNAH OF AMERICA INC: $36 · InternationalRachels Children Reclamation Foundation: $300 · PhilanthropyCHAI LIFELINE INC: $118 · Health
Other$241,409Religion$9,280Human Services$600International$436Philanthropy$300Health$118

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNORTH SHORE HEBREW ACADEMY: $87,500 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA: $9,100 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetMARC LUSTGARTEN PANCREATIC CANCER FOUNDATION: $600 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetRachels Children Reclamation Foundation: $300 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF NIR KIRYAT ARBA: $180 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $118 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMIT CHILDREN INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMULTIPLE SCLEROSIS FOUNDATION INC: $55 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetEMUNAH OF AMERICA INC: $36 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 NORTH SHORE HEBREW ACADEMY ↗
  • Who funds ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA ↗
  • Who funds MARC LUSTGARTEN PANCREATIC CANCER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ATERET COHANIM INC ↗
  • Who funds Rachels Children Reclamation Foundation ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF NIR KIRYAT ARBA ↗
  • Who funds CHAI LIFELINE INC ↗
  • Who funds AMIT CHILDREN INC ↗
  • Who funds MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds EMUNAH OF AMERICA 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 FundNational Philanthropi…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Jewish Communal FundNY14.1× affinity5 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Markus & Helen Orbach Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Markus & Helen Orbach Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%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
    2get 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 23 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 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2022) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2021, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Markus & Helen Orbach’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