· Private foundation
Y David and Cheryl Scharf Family Charitable 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 it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k19 grants · $39k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $97k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NEW YORK UNIVERSITY | $50,000 |
| AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIR COMMITTEE | $25,000 |
| OUR PLACE IN NEW YORK INC | $23,600 |
| AMIDEI ZION OF BOBOV | $18,000 |
| EZER MIZION | $10,000 |
| YESHIVA OHAVEI TORAH OF RIVERDALE INC | $10,000 |
| KAHAL TOLDOS TZVI DSPINKA | $10,000 |
| THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART | $7,500 |
| ISREAEL HERITAGE FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| WESTCHESTER DAY SCHOOL | $5,000 |
| MESIVTA YESHIVA RABBI CHAIM BERLIN | $3,600 |
| Individual grant recipient | $3,400 |
| UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI HILLEL | $2,500 |
| CONGREGATION KHAL SHAAREI ZION | $2,000 |
| MANHATTAN HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS | $1,800 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
Its human-services grants (FY21–25, $113k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, 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.
How this is measured
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +21% since the first grant, against +20% for those funded once.
12 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 16 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, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $65k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- NYNew York University2× · 2022–2025 · $100k · revenue +21%
- AZAMIDEI ZION OF BOBOV INC2× · 2023–2025 · $79k
- OPOUR PLACE IN NY INC5× · 2021–2025 · $65k · revenue +78%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2024 · $50k
- KCKHAL CHASIDIMone grant, 2023 · $50k
- CTCONGREGATION TOMCHEI SHABBOS INCone grant, 2022 · $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.
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.
The university is composed of several colleges and schools providing undergraduate, graduate, professional and post-doctoral education and training and research and clinical programs.
To prepare students for the rabbinate and to issue the traditional certificate of ordination in connection therewith. the seminary is authorized to confer the degree of master of hebrew literature (m.h.l.), doctor of hebrew literature…
The foundation's mission is to research, locate, translate, and create jewish religious, literary, biblical, and talmudic works for religious, scholarly and cultural purposes for the general public.
How this is measured
12 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. 12 of the 48 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.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
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 New York University ↗
- Who funds OUR PLACE IN NY INC ↗
- Who funds METROPOLITAN NEW YORK COORDINATING COUNCIL ON JEWISH POVERTY ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ↗
- Who funds THE AUSCHWITZ JEWISH CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds EZER MIZION ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA OHAVEI TORAH OF RIVERDALE INC ↗
- Who funds METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART ↗
- Who funds THE MIKVAH LTD ↗
- Who funds BIKUR CHOLIM OF MANHATTAN 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.
Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · The Chestnut Foundation · Jeannette and H Peter Kriendler Char Trust · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization Y David and Cheryl Scharf Family Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Y David and Cheryl Scharf Family Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
Play a game based on Y David and Cheryl Scharf Family’s filings →