Skip to content
Yad Miriam Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Yad Miriam Foundation Inc

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.

$33k
Granted FY2023
3
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$15k
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 2023.

Religion$1.1MHuman Services$104kEducation$55kArts & Culture$5kHealth$700
02FY2023 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k1 grant · $3k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $30k
$15,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$170k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONGREGATION AHAVAS CHESED$15,000
FRIENDS OF NEVE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN INC$15,000
KEREN MENUCHA$3,000
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 (FY17–18, $86k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, 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%AHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC: $73k → 20%AHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC: $13k → 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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 19 repeat orgs$177k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +678% since the first grant, against +43% for those funded once.

19 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2023, 17 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

19
24

Total granted

$1.1M
$174k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+678%
+43%

Still filing today

21%
13%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
ReligionHuman ServicesEducationCivil RightsHealthOther
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

  • AY
    AHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $86k · revenue +678%
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF TIFERET CENTER
    2× · 2017–2018 · $34k · revenue ×35 · 42% of their budget
  • BT
    BAIS TOVA INC
    2× · 2018–2021 · $25k · revenue +59%

Funded once

  • CB
    CONGREGATION BOBOV 45
    one grant, 2018 · $50k
  • BY
    BOBOVER YESHIVAH BNEI ZION
    one grant, 2017 · $40k
  • LO
    LECHEIRIS ORGANIZATION INC
    one grant, 2018 · $15k · revenue +23%
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
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
—
2
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
3
Sherit Isroel
—
4
Ahavas Torah V'chesed
Philanthropy
5
American Friends of Even Yisroel Charitable Foundation
Philanthropy
6
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
7
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
8
Bais Yehuda Perach Rochel Foundation
Public Benefit
9
Bnei Moshe
Philanthropy
10
Friends of Meor Israel

Education and religious activities and research

Education
11
Chevras Shabbos Kodesh Podcast Fellowship
Religion
12
Aishel Hatzedek
International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ahavat Yisroel Humanity Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Friends of the Pittsburgh Institutions. 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 44 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $199,400 · OtherIndividual grant recipientBETH HAMEDRASH CHASIDIM: $142,860 · OtherBETH HAMEDRASH CHASIDIMKHAL ICHUD CHASIDIM: $122,000 · OtherKHAL ICHUD CHASIDIMCONGREGATION YESHIVA YAD MOISHE: $77,500 · OtherCONGREGATION YESHIVA YAD MOISHECONGREGATION AHAVAS CHESED: $75,000 · OtherCONGREGATION AHAVAS CHESEDAMERICAN FREINDS OF MOSDOT BEIT SHEMESH: $62,600 · OtherAMERICAN FREINDS OF MOSDOT BEIT SHEMESHCONGREGATION OROS BAIS YAAKOV: $57,000 · OtherCONGREGATION STERLING FOREST INC: $55,000 · OtherCONGREGATION BOBOV 45: $50,000 · OtherBETH HAMEDRACH CHASIDEI AMSHINOV: $45,000 · OtherCONGREGATION ALEXANDER INC: $42,290 · OtherBOBOVER YESHIVAH BNEI ZION: $40,000 · Other+26 more: $140,770 · Other+26 moreAHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC: $86,000 · Human ServicesAMERICAN FRIENDS OF TIFERET CENTER: $33,750 · ReligionMOSDOS KEVER RACHEL IMEINU: $10,000 · ReligionBAIS TOVA INC: $25,000 · EducationLECHEIRIS ORGANIZATION INC: $15,000 · Civil RightsCHAI LIFELINE INC: $700 · Health
Other$1,109,420Human Services$86,000Religion$43,750Education$25,000Civil Rights$15,000Health$700

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 budgetAHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC: $86,000 over 2y, 3.8% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF TIFERET CENTER: $33,750 over 2y, 42% of budgetFRIENDS OF NEVE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN INC: $30,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetBAIS TOVA INC: $25,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetLECHEIRIS ORGANIZATION INC: $15,000 over 1y, 9.4% of budgetMOSDOS KEVER RACHEL IMEINU: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetTHE FRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH INSTITUTIONS: $5,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $700 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 AHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF TIFERET CENTER ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF NEVE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN INC ↗
  • Who funds BAIS TOVA INC ↗
  • Who funds LECHEIRIS ORGANIZATION INC ↗
  • Who funds MOSDOS KEVER RACHEL IMEINU ↗
  • Who funds THE FRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH INSTITUTIONS ↗
  • Who funds CHAI LIFELINE 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 FundChavie Stern Family F…Jewish Communal FundDonors Fund IncThe Rachel FoundationGml Family Foundation…Park Charitable TrustThe Etz Chaim Charita…Caroline & Joseph S G…Friends of Mosdot GoorZecher Avrohom IncEisenberg Family Foun…
The Ojc FundNY46.1× affinity26 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Chavie Stern Family Foundation Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Donors Fund Inc · The Rachel Foundation · Gml Family Foundation Inc · Park Charitable Trust · The Etz Chaim Charitable Trust · Caroline & Joseph S Gruss Life Monument Funds Inc · Friends of Mosdot Goor · Zecher Avrohom Inc · Eisenberg Family Foundation 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 Yad Miriam Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Yad Miriam Foundation Inc. 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 →median 7%
  • Bais Tova Inc: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get 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 · 0–10%
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.

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 44 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Yad Miriam’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