Skip to content
Yayin Tov Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Yayin Tov Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$91k
Granted FY2024still arriving
18
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$32k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0183% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

Religion$306kEducation$66kCrime & Legal$51kArts & Culture$37kOther$0
02FY2024 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k16 grants · $38k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $53k
$2,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$618k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HERITAGE FOUNDATION FOR PRESERVATION OF JEWISH CEMETERIES$31,500
YESHIVA MACHZIKEI HADAS$21,800
CONG KEHILAS BELZ MONSEY$7,200
Individual grant recipient$5,000
Individual grant recipient$4,600
CONG YETEV LEV$3,600
KOVNA$3,600
CONG TORAS EMES OF LUBLIN$2,800
CONG AHAVAS CHESED$2,000
Individual grant recipient$1,800
CONG ZICHRON MENACHEM$1,800
CHUPPA$1,100
Individual grant recipient$1,000
CONG LOMDEI TORAH BELZ$1,000
CONG KHAL YEREIM$1,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 94% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%CONG KEHILAS BELZ MONSEY: $7k → 14%MERKAZ OLAMI: $1k → 17%YESHIV VYELIPOL: $9k → 20%SWEET DREAMS: $20k → 11%BAIS BROCHO: $10k → 11%CONG YAZREINEE: $250 → 14%CONG SHARIE CHESED: $5k → 14%MERKAZ OLAMI: $1k → 17%YESHIVAL VYLIPOL: $5k → 20%RAV LEHOSHIA: $4k → 14%CONG MACHZIKEI TORAH: $1k → 17%CONG NACHLAS: $1k → 20%CONG ZICHRON MENACHEM: $2k → 14%CONG MACHZIKEI TORAH: $360 → 17%HERITAGE FOUNDATION FOR PRESERVATION OF JEWISH CEMETERIES: $32k → 20%CONG SHARIE CHESED: $1k → 14%CONG EMEK HATALMUD: $5k → 17%HERITAGE FOUNDATION FOR PRESERVATION OF JEWISH CEMETERIES: $6k → 20%CONG KHAL YEREIM: $1k → 14%CONG EMEK HATALMUD: $4k → 17%CONG ATZEI CHAIM: $5k → 20%CONG TORAS EMES OF LUBLIN: $10k → 14%CONG YETEV LEV: $4k → 20%CONG TORAS EMES OF LUBLIN: $3k → 14%CONG GEMACH BNEI PINCHOS: $54k → 20%BAIS MALKA: $10k → 14%MACHON MASEH ROCKEACH: $41k → 20%CONG YERIAS SHLOME: $1k → 14%CONG TODOS ODOM: $36k → 20%CHUPPA: $26k → 20%KOVNA: $4k → 20%YESHIVA MACHZIKEI HADAS: $60k → 20%CONG OHOLEY SHEM: $4k → 20%YESHIVA MACHZIKEI HADAS: $35k → 20%KOLLEL MATEH EFRAIM: $3k → 20%CONG LOMDEI TORAH: $25k → 20%CONG AHAVAS CHESED: $2k → 20%YESHIVA MACHZIKEI HADAS: $22k → 20%MASEH ROKEACH: $2k → 20%CONG MEOR HATFILA: $10k → 20%CONG AHAVAS CHESED: $2k → 20%YESHIVA KARLIN: $3k → 20%CHUPPA: $1k → 20%CONG LOMDEI TORAH BELZ: $2k → 20%MASEH ROKEACH: $1k → 20%BOBOV BIKUR CHOLIM: $1k → 20%CONG SAR SHULEM: $250 → 20%CONG LOMDEI TORAH BELZ: $1k → 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.

46%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$221k · 11 repeat orgs$258k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +5% since the first grant, against -11% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
18

Total granted

$221k
$240k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+5%
-11%

Still filing today

9%
6%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $18k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • YM
    YESHIVA MACHZIKEI HADAS
    3× · 2022–2024 · $117k
  • HF
    HERITAGE FOUNDATION FOR PRESERVATI- ON OF THE JEWISH CEMETERIES INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $37k · revenue +5%
  • C
    CHUPPA
    2× · 2022–2024 · $27k

Funded once

  • CG
    CONG GEMACH BNEI PINCHOS
    one grant, 2021 · $54k
  • MM
    MACHON MASEH ROCKEACH INC
    one grant, 2022 · $41k · revenue -11%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $36k
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
04the grantee network

2 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2024.

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 2024, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 2 of the 36 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
2/2
Grantees still filing
1/2
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

YESHIVA MACHZIKEI HADAS: $116,800 · OtherYESHIVA MACHZIKEI HADASCONG GEMACH BNEI PINCHOS: $54,000 · OtherCONG GEMACH BNEI PINCHOSIndividual grant recipient: $36,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCHUPPA: $27,100 · OtherCHUPPACONG LOMDEI TORAH: $25,000 · OtherCONG LOMDEI TORAHIndividual grant recipient: $20,000 · Other+28 more: $121,735 · Other+28 moreMACHON MASEH ROCKEACH INC: $41,000 · Arts & CultureMACHON MASEH ROCKE…HERITAGE FOUNDATION FOR PRESERVATI- ON OF THE JEWISH CEMETERIES INC: $37,250 · Arts & CultureHERITAGE FOUNDATIO…
Other$400,635Arts & Culture$78,250

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMACHON MASEH ROCKEACH INC: $41,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetHERITAGE FOUNDATION FOR PRESERVATI- ON OF THE JEWISH CEMETERIES INC: $37,250 over 2y, 1.9% 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 MACHON MASEH ROCKEACH INC ↗
  • Who funds HERITAGE FOUNDATION FOR PRESERVATI- ON OF THE JEWISH CEMETERIES 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 FundEngel Family Foundati…Fidelity Investments …
The Ojc FundNY18.6× affinity7 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Engel Family Foundation 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 Yayin Tov Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Yayin Tov Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%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
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 Yayin Tov Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Yayin Tov 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 36 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Yayin Tov’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