Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Oster 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.

$48k
Granted FY2025still arriving
16
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it funds
0161% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$378kEducation$8kHuman Services$4kPhilanthropy$2kHealth$638Other$0
02FY2025 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k14 grants · $21k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $27k
$2,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$165k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BNOS MALKE BELZ$14,835
Individual grant recipient$11,934
BNOS JERUSALEM$4,390
Yeshiva Machzikel Hadas Belz$3,400
Bais Tzipora Girls School$3,300
PLEDGER CHARITABLE LTD$2,700
VARIOUS CHARITIES$2,283
Ohr Hatzofan$2,000
Individual grant recipient$1,500
DAILY GIVING$359
MIKVAH USA$326
YESHIVAS MIR YERUSHALAYIM$175
TORAHANYTIME$104
RAV CHESED$101
BONEI OLAM$99
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 (FY17–25, $4k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%NACHZIK CHAZAK: $4k → 20%BONEI OLAM: $510 → 20%BONEI OLAM: $128 → 20%BONEI OLAM: $99 → 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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$684k · 26 repeat orgs$49k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +90% since the first grant, against +33% for those funded once.

26 repeat relationships: 13 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

26
9

Total granted

$684k
$49k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+90%
+33%

Still filing today

15%
11%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $638 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
ReligionHuman ServicesPhilanthropyInternationalOther
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

  • MU
    MIKVAH USA INC
    3× · 2017–2025 · $6k · revenue +61%
  • PC
    PLEDGER CHARITABLE LTD
    2× · 2024–2025 · $4k · revenue +90%
  • BO
    Bonei Olam Inc
    3× · 2017–2025 · $737 · revenue +224%

Funded once

  • OC
    OHEL CHAI
    one grant, 2023 · $33k
  • NC
    NACHZIK CHAZAK INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $4k · revenue +33%
  • BE
    BAYIS ESTER
    one grant, 2020 · $4k
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
Nezer Yisroel Inc
—
2
Hashevaynu Inc

The furthurance of jewish concepts and religious beliefs.

Education
3
Hayashar Vehatov Inc

The furtherance of primacy of orthodox jewish jurisprudence

Religion
4
Ohr Olam Corp

publish religious books

Religion
5
American Friends of Daas Aharon Inc

To promote, assist, and sponsor the spreading of Jewish religious education in Israel. The organization will also organize inspirational gatherings in the USA to enhance the participants' Torah knowledge.

Education
6
Chevra-Kadisha Yerushalayim Inc

To facilitate traditional religious burial for those of the orthodox jewish faith in accordance with the ancient jewish custom of being buried on israeli soil by arranging for the resale of burial plots in israeli cemeteries and providing…

Philanthropy
7
Tzohar Halev Inc

Support of tzohar-a school for special needs children located in israel

Education
8
Taharusam Inc

To promote authentic orthodox judaisim by helping fund jewish causes worldwide.

Philanthropy
9
Chevra Ahavas Chesed Inc

Assistance in religious burials

Membership Benefit
10
Birchas Yaakov Kollel Inc

Maintain communal and charitable affairs in accordance with the tradition of the orthodox jewish faith

—
11
Kolel Zichron Avrohom Inc

Supervision of kosher meal preparation

Religion
12
Mchon Kisvei R Elya Boruch Inc

To publish and disseminate the torah lectures of rabbi elya boruch finkel of blessed memory.

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of Yeshiva Dmir Inc; the most unlike its peers is TorahAnytimeCom Inc. 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

8 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. 8 of the 38 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)
8/8
Grantees still filing
8/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Brashiv: $100,000 · OtherBrashivIndividual grant recipient: $94,798 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $88,111 · OtherIndividual grant recipientVARIOUS CHARITIES: $85,624 · OtherVARIOUS CHARITIESKolel Zera Kodesh Dropshitz: $77,000 · OtherKolel Zera Kodesh DropshitzCong Kolel Ohel Yesochor Dchasedi B: $58,355 · OtherCong Kolel Ohel Yesochor Dchasedi BBNOS MALKE BELZ: $46,972 · OtherBNOS MALKE BELZBNOS JERUSALEM: $33,588 · OtherOHEL CHAI: $33,000 · OtherYeshiva Machzikel Hadas Belz: $29,768 · Other+21 more: $74,153 · Other+21 moreMIKVAH USA INC: $6,388 · ReligionCAMP HASC INC: $300 · Religion+1 more: $104 · ReligionNACHZIK CHAZAK INC: $3,700 · Human ServicesBonei Olam Inc: $737 · Human ServicesDAILY GIVING INC: $359 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC: $175 · International
Other$721,369Religion$6,792Human Services$4,437Philanthropy$359International$175

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 budgetMIKVAH USA INC: $6,388 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetPLEDGER CHARITABLE LTD: $3,900 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNACHZIK CHAZAK INC: $3,700 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBonei Olam Inc: $737 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCAMP HASC INC: $300 over 2y, 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 MIKVAH USA INC ↗
  • Who funds PLEDGER CHARITABLE LTD ↗
  • Who funds NACHZIK CHAZAK INC ↗
  • Who funds Bonei Olam Inc ↗
  • Who funds DAILY GIVING INC ↗
  • Who funds CAMP HASC INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC ↗
  • Who funds TorahAnytimeCom 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.

The Ojc FundNY23.7× affinity10 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Yeled V'Yalda Early Childhood Center Inc · Hf 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 Oster Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Oster 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%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The Oster Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Oster 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.

    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 38 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 Oster’s filings →

    More from the funding graph