Skip to content
Yisnasay Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Yisnasay 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.

$299k
Granted FY2025still arriving
21
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$134k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0168% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Religion$939kHealth$15kHuman Services$11kPhilanthropy$7kPublic Benefit$1kYouth Development$18Other$0
02FY2025 · 21 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k12 grants · $44k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $121k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $134k
$7,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$202k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONGREGATION BAIS MORDECHAI$134,400
Individual grant recipient$25,150
VARIOUS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS$25,055
Individual grant recipient$15,180
Individual grant recipient$12,000
Individual grant recipient$11,958
RAV LEHOSHIA$11,500
YAD YOSEF$10,000
CONG ADAS YEREIM$10,000
YESHIVA MACHZIKEI HADAS$7,800
YESHIVA KEREN ORAH$7,000
TOIREM$5,768
CONG ACHIEZER$4,700
YESHIVA TIFERES SHMUEL$4,000
Individual grant recipient$4,000
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 91% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%RAV LEHOSHIA: $12k → 14%GEMACH KEREN HILLEL INC: $15k → 14%CONG EVOCHARTO BACHAIM: $53k → 20%YESHIVA SHAAREI TZION: $10k → 8%CONG TFILA LEDUVID: $15k → 11%GEMACH KEREN HILLEL INC: $13k → 14%CONG EVOCHARTO BACHAIM: $40k → 20%CONG MAYAN TORAH VCHESED: $12k → 11%CONG EVOCHARTO BACHAIM: $21k → 20%CONGREGATION HEICHEL BURECH TZVI: $10k → 11%CONGREGATION BENAI SHLOMO ZALMEN: $10k → 20%CONG ATERES TZVI: $25k → 14%YESHIVA BAIS YEHUDA: $12k → 14%CONG ADAS YEREIM: $26k → 20%CONG ADAS YEREIM: $21k → 20%CONG ADAS YEREIM: $20k → 20%CONG ADAS YEREIM: $17k → 20%CONG ADAS YEREIM: $15k → 20%CHASUDIM TOVIM FOUNDATION: $14k → 20%CONG ADAS YEREIM: $10k → 20%TORAS CHEMED NITRA INC: $10k → 20%CONG KEREN YESHIYA: $12k → 20%CONGREGATION KEREN TZLACH: $89k → 20%CONGREGATION KEREN TZLACH: $65k → 20%FRIENDS OF KEREN TZLACH JERUSALEM: $50k → 20%FRIENDS OF KEREN TZLACH JERUSALEM: $40k → 20%CONG TZION LENEFESH CHAYA: $38k → 20%MESIVTA YESHIVA RABBI CHAIM BERLIN: $36k → 20%FRIENDS OF KEREN TZLACH JERUSALEM: $33k → 20%FRIENDS OF KEREN TZLACH JERUSALEM: $30k → 20%CONGREGATION KEREN TZLACH: $20k → 20%CONGREGATION KEREN TZLACH: $20k → 20%CONGREGATION BAIS MORDECHAI: $134k → 20%VARIOUS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS: $25k → 20%VARIOUS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS: $22k → 20%CONG GIVATH SCHOUL: $16k → 20%BAIS YAAKOV ADAS YERAIM: $15k → 20%CONGREGATION T CHEMED: $15k → 20%CONG GIVATH SCHOUL: $15k → 20%CONG KEHILAS BELZ: $14k → 20%VARIOUS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS: $14k → 20%EIZER LANITZRACH: $13k → 20%CONG GIVATH SCHOUL: $13k → 20%NESIVOS BAIS YAAKOV: $13k → 20%CONG GIVATH SCHOUL: $12k → 20%VARIOUS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS: $10k → 20%CONG KUPTAT TZFAS: $24k → 20%YESHIVA MACHZIKEI HADAS: $11k → 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.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.2M · 45 repeat orgs$518k to everyone else

45 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2025, 34 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

45
53

Total granted

$1.2M
$291k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+58%
+274%

Still filing today

2%
8%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 24% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $227k 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
HealthEducationYouth DevelopmentReligionPublic BenefitOther
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

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    5× · 2017–2023 · $204k
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF KEREN TZLACH JERUSALEM
    4× · 2018–2022 · $153k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    3× · 2017–2019 · $114k

Funded once

  • CT
    CONG TZION LENEFESH CHAYA
    one grant, 2021 · $38k
  • MY
    MESIVTA YESHIVA RABBI CHAIM BERLIN
    one grant, 2021 · $36k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $24k
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

7 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. 7 of the 108 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/7
Grantees still filing
6/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $204,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientFRIENDS OF KEREN TZLACH JERUSALEM: $152,600 · OtherFRIENDS OF KEREN TZLACH JERUSALEMCONGREGATION BAIS MORDECHAI: $134,400 · OtherCONGREGATION BAIS MORDECHAIIndividual grant recipient: $114,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCONG ADAS YEREIM: $114,000 · OtherCONG ADAS YEREIMVARIOUS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS: $100,380 · OtherVARIOUS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONSIndividual grant recipient: $62,814 · Other+95 more: $811,874 · Other+95 moreCongregation Rav Lehoshia Inc: $11,500 · ReligionMAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER: $5,000 · HealthCHAI LIFELINE INC: $241 · HealthTALMUD TORAH BAIS AVROHOM INC: $2,180 · EducationVYAZREIM INC: $1,300 · Public BenefitYEODED INC: $18 · Youth Development
Other$1,694,068Religion$11,500Health$5,241Education$2,180Public Benefit$1,300Youth Development$18

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCHASDEI YETEV LEV INC: $10,500 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetMAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTALMUD TORAH BAIS AVROHOM INC: $2,180 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetVYAZREIM INC: $1,300 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $241 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 Congregation Rav Lehoshia Inc ↗
  • Who funds CHASDEI YETEV LEV 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 FundJack Adjmi Family Fou…Greenzweig Family Fou…Blum FoundationIgcf IncHf FoundationJ & E Wolf Foundation…Mk Charity Foundation…Fund for Life Foundat…Zelig and Rifky Weiss…Toras Chesed IncZichron Simcha Dsassov
The Ojc FundNY48.7× affinity32 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Greenzweig Family Foundation · Blum Foundation · Igcf Inc · Hf Foundation · J & E Wolf Foundation Inc · Mk Charity Foundation Inc · Fund for Life Foundation Inc · Zelig and Rifky Weiss Family Foundation Inc · Toras Chesed Inc · Zichron Simcha Dsassov

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 Yisnasay Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Yisnasay Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 10%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
    1get 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 · 0–5%
    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.

    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 108 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 Yisnasay’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