· Private foundation
The Orphiflamme 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k14 grants · $283k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $282k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Iyyun Center | $82,000 |
| Virginia Organizing | $80,000 |
| Ayin Press Limited | $70,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $50,000 |
| PEF Israel Endowment Funds Inc | $40,000 |
| Chabad of Charlottesville | $40,000 |
| Sukkat Shaleym Inc | $30,000 |
| The Torah and Nature Foundation | $25,000 |
| Friends of Lev Le'Daas Inc | $25,000 |
| Chabad East DC Jewish Center | $18,000 |
| Chasdei Yisroel | $18,000 |
| Yiddish Farm Education Center | $15,000 |
| Living Earth School | $15,000 |
| Healing Harvest Forest Foundation | $15,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $12,000 |
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 (FY18–23, $56k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 91% 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +8% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
32 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2025, 20 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $110k 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
FRACTURED ATLAS INC6× · 2018–2024 · $317k · revenue +57%- TATHE AYIN INSTITUTE INC3× · 2023–2025 · $220k · revenue +224%
The Trustees of Princeton University4× · 2018–2022 · $145k · revenue +8%
Funded once
- LELiving Earth School (LEASCHOO)one grant, 2022 · $180k
- AArthiveone grant, 2021 · $95k
- SISEFARIA INCone grant, 2023 · $75k · revenue -64%
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.
To provide education relating to the connection between jewish traditional teachings and the importance of protecting the environment. to provide educational programs for synagogues and jewish schools.
To support religious, charitable, scientific, literary and/or educational programs
The university is composed of several colleges and schools providing undergraduate, graduate, professional and post-doctoral education and training and research and clinical programs.
The organization will provide financial assistance to educational institutions that promote the observance of the jewish religion, its laws and traditions, and sacred texts, including yeshivat nachalat yossef, located in jerusalem, israel.
Tzohar provides an environment where talented young women engage in profound Jewish learning and are empowered to express their thoughts and feelings through various artistic forms. By the end of the school year, students have discovered a…
Discover and restore Jewish literary works
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chasdei Yisroel Inc and the most unlike its peers is Covesville Child Development Center. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 18 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 13% of your grantees by number, and just 15% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
38 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. 38 of the 105 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 FRACTURED ATLAS INC ↗
- Who funds THE AYIN INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds The Trustees of Princeton University ↗
- Who funds VIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC ↗
- Who funds SUKKAT SHALEYM INC ↗
- Who funds ALLEGHENY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds SEFARIA INC ↗
- Who funds CHASDEI YISROEL INC ↗
- Who funds ORCHOS CHAIM CHABURA ↗
- Who funds LIVING EARTH SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds PEF ISRAEL ENDOWMENT FUNDS INC ↗
- Who funds THE TORAH AND NATURE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds YAD YAAKOV ↗
- Who funds THE RABINOWITZ INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds American Friends of Bat Ayin Yeshiva ↗
- Who funds CANOPY CANOPY CANOPY INC ↗
- Who funds JCUC BLESSING 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 Opaline Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · Charlottesville Area Community Foundation · The Polis Schutz Family Foundation · Fjc · Jewish Community Foundation of San Diego · The Shimon Ben Joseph Foundation Dba Jim Joseph Foundation · National Society for Hebrew Day Schools · Community Foundation Boulder County · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Impactassetsinc
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 Orphiflamme Foundation 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 11% 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 Orphiflamme Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Orphiflamme Foundation 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.