· Private foundation
Zichron Chaim Avraham Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
Read this first · the figures below need context
93% of Zichron Chaim Avraham Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Paypal Charitable Giving Fund, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 1 organization directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2023, the last year Zichron Chaim Avraham Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 5 organizations, $580k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2023
- Under $10k3 grants · $5k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $551k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MEGED SHOMAYIM | $231,000 |
| KEREN TIFERETH YISROEL FOUNDATION | $171,030 |
| KOLLEL ZICHRON YESHAYA | $148,500 |
| CONGREGATION MEOR HATEFILLAH | $25,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,000 |
| YESHIVA GEDOLA OF PATTERSON | $1,600 |
| YESHIVAS RADIN | $1,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 64% of your 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.
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 +206% since the first grant, against +49% for the ones you funded once.
14 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2023, 10 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call). Read against FY2023, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- MSMEGED SHOMAYIM7× · 2018–2025 · $1.2M · revenue -75%
- KZKOLLEL ZICHRON YESHAYA6× · 2018–2024 · $502k
- KTKEREN TIFERETH YISROEL FOUNDATION INC4× · 2019–2023 · $176k · revenue +489% · 96% of their budget
Funded once
- DSDARKEI SHMUEL INCone grant, 2021 · $55k · revenue -18% · 55% of their budget
- BMBAIS MEDRASH NACHLAS YAAKOVone grant, 2018 · $50k
- EPELIYOHU PINCUSone grant, 2017 · $20k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To operate a religious school for high school and post high school students.
Providing jewish and secular education for elementary school aged children.
Religious Teaching
Parochial elementary school with a focus on sephardic tradition.
The organization operates a religious/parochial high school and college in lakewood, nj.
To conduct and maintain a religious school in accordance with the tenets, traditions and precepts of the orthodox jewish faith.
To provide religious Jewish education.
Providing secular and religious education for elementary and high school aged students
Providing jewish and secular education for high school girls.
The purpose of this organization is to support indigent torah scholars and their families by providing stipends and additional funds at jewish holiday times.
Operation of a parochial grade school in lakewood, new jersey.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tomchei Shabbos D'lakewood Inc and the most unlike its peers is Keren Tifereth Yisroel Foundation Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 of the 108 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 · Zichron Btz Tzedakah Foundation · Donors Fund Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Regina Goldwasser Foundation · Jdh Foundation · The Sorala Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Keren Tifereth Yisroel Foundation Inc · Goldner Family Charity Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Zichron Chaim Avraham Foundation 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Bais Tova Inc — 7% of income from government
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.