· Private foundation
Abraham W Rizika Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k24 grants · $32k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $109k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ALLIANCE FOR CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT | $42,000 |
| MIT SLOAN ANNUAL FUND | $37,500 |
| TEMPLE BETH AVODAH | $16,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $12,500 |
| JEWISH NATIONAL FUND | $6,500 |
| BETH ISRAEL HOSPITAL | $5,000 |
| HUBSPOT | $3,631 |
| HIGH MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE | $2,000 |
| FIRST | $2,000 |
| BROOKLINE ROBOTICS INITIATIVE | $2,000 |
| BROOKLINE TEEN CENTER | $1,800 |
| COLEL CHABAD | $1,200 |
| CROHN'S & COLITIS FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
| HELVETIA | $1,000 |
| 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON | $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.
Your human-services grants (FY19–24, $4k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +40% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
42 repeat relationships — 18 still active in FY2024, 24 since wound down; 7 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, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k 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
- CCCROHN'S & COLITIS FOUNDATION INC4× · 2020–2024 · $7k · revenue +12%
- BTBROOKLINE TEEN CENTER6× · 2019–2024 · $6k · revenue +36%
Lewy Body Dementia Association Inc3× · 2020–2022 · $5k · revenue +36%
Funded once
- CNCAMBRIDGEPORT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION INCone grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue -87%
- WLWOLFMAN LTD HAIFAone grant, 2023 · $5k
- TOTEMPLE OHABEI SHALOMone grant, 2020 · $4k
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.
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…
Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.
Mission strengthened by more than a century and a half of dedication to academic excellence, boston college commits itself to the highest standards of teaching and research in undergraduate, graduate and professional programs and to the…
Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…
Education and Research
Biu produces students who excel in the sciences, humanities, law, engineering, business & the arts.
Western new england university, a comprehensive private institution with a tradition of excellence in teaching and scholarship and a commitment to service, awards undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees in various departments from…
Fordham university, the jesuit university of new york, is committed to the discovery of wisdom and the transmission of learning, through research and through education of the highest quality. for more information, see schedule o.
Rooted in the liberal arts & sciences & lutheran expression of the christian faith, & is committed to offering a challenging education that develops qualities of mind, spirit, & body necessary for a rewarding life of leadership & service…
The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
Dartmouth College educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership, through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wounded Warrior Project Inc and the most unlike its peers is Brookline Robotics Initiative. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 49 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
46 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. 46 of the 73 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.
- Who funds JEWISH NATIONAL FUND (KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL) INC ↗
- Who funds BROOKLINE ROBOTICS INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds HIGH MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds CROHN'S & COLITIS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds BROOKLINE TEEN CENTER ↗
- Who funds PHILMONT STAFF ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds CAMBRIDGEPORT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds Lewy Body Dementia Association Inc ↗
- Who funds ROLLINS COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds Carnegie Mellon University ↗
- Who funds SILENT SPRING INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds GARY SINISE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ROGERSON COMMUNITIES INC ↗
- Who funds 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON ↗
- Who funds CITIZENS CLIMATE EDUCATION CORP ↗
- Who funds Hospitality Homes Inc ↗
- Who funds TOGETHER WOMEN RISE ↗
- Who funds HOME OF HOPE INDIA - US ↗
- Who funds KIMBALL UNION ACADEMY ↗
- Who funds CENTRAL ASIA INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ALYN HOSPITALINC ↗
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: Eastern Bank Foundation · The Hamilton Company Charitable Foundation · Boston Foundation Inc · Allyn Family Foundation Inc · Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Inc · Allen & Franka Charlupski Foundation · Janey Fund Charitable Trust · Rockland Trust Charitable Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · The Chicago Community Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
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 Abraham W Rizika 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.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- Oregon Food Bank — 21% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- Silent Spring Institute Inc — 12% of income from government
- Rehearsal for Life Inc — 11% of income from government
- Rogerson Communities Inc — 6% of income from government
- Steps to Success Inc — 5% of income from government
- Portland Center Stage — 1% of income from government
- Broadway Rose Theatre Co — 1% of income from government
- Brookline Teen Center — 0% of income from government
- Rollins College — 0% of income from government
- Museum of Fine Arts — 0% of income from government
- Pan-Massachusetts Challenge Inc — 0% of income from government
- Wounded Warrior Project Inc — 0% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Abraham W Rizika Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Abraham W Rizika 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.