· Public charity
Yiddish Nachas Inc
Support for families that require assistance
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2023–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 36 grants below total $585,310 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,715,774 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,130,464 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k20 grants · $143k
- $10k–50k14 grants · $290k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $152k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CONG KYL ISLAND VIEW MONROE NY | $100,360 |
| KOLLEL BNEI BRAK INC | $51,869 |
| SHOSHANAS HOAMOKIM | $36,965 |
| CONGREGATION BAIS SHMIEL TZVI | $33,980 |
| CONGREGATION BNOS TORAS EMACHU INC | $29,930 |
| CONGREGATION BNAI YOEL INC | $27,035 |
| CONG SHAREI TORAH INC | $23,420 |
| REGIONAL BIKUR CHOLIM | $21,920 |
| CONG MYSHIV NEFESH INC | $21,487 |
| CONG KOL ARYE | $19,650 |
| CHISKEY INC | $15,159 |
| GEMILAS CHASUDIM KEREN ELUZER INC | $15,000 |
| CONG DERECH HATORAH | $12,387 |
| MOSDOS SANZ KLAUSENBURG OF MONSEY | $12,000 |
| ADAS LEMBERG | $10,700 |
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 (FY23–24, $31k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% 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.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 100% of Yiddish Nachas Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 100% of the giving stays in NY; read by stated purpose it is 0% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +26% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
9 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 27 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 25% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $437k 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
- CBCONGREGATION BNAI YOEL INC2× · 2023–2024 · $70k
- CBCONGREGATION BAIS SHMIEL TZVI2× · 2023–2024 · $58k
- CBCONGREGATION BNOS TORAS EMACHU INC2× · 2023–2024 · $36k
Funded once
- CKCONGREGATION KOLEL BNEI BRAKone grant, 2023 · $31k
- CMCONG MAYUNOIS HANACHALone grant, 2023 · $30k
- CMCONG MESIVTAone grant, 2023 · $26k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
Your grantees are a median of 20 years old; the field is 13. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 12% of your grantees by number, and just 19% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% lost their exemption, against 11% 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.
4 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. 4 of the 51 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.
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 Ojc Fund · American Friends of Bnai Levy Foundation · Vyazreim Inc · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · Zelig and Rifky Weiss Family Foundation Inc · Bli Metzurim Jbb Family Foundation · Chayim V Chesed · Community Health Aide Services Inc · Madanim Foundation · The Schwartz Charitable Foundation Inc · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Donors Fund Inc
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 Yiddish Nachas Inc 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.
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 Yiddish Nachas Inc?
Find your warmest path to Yiddish Nachas Inc 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.