· Private foundation
Amos and Ruth Wilnai 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.
Read this first · the figures below need context
65% of Amos and Ruth Wilnai Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Pef Israel Endowment Funds Inc, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 7 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2019, the last year Amos and Ruth Wilnai Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 5 organizations, $617k. 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.
The 16 grants below total $565,740 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $617,490 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $51,750 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 · FY2019
- Under $10k10 grants · $14k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $52k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $170k
- $250k+1 grant · $330k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Oshman Family Jewish Community Center (OFJCC) | $330,000 |
| Jewish Community Federation of San Diego | $120,000 |
| Direct Relief via Pledging | $50,000 |
| Good People Fund | $25,000 |
| KGED | $15,000 |
| P E F Israel Endowment Funds, Inc | $11,500 |
| AAMDS Int'l Foundation | $5,000 |
| Silicon Valley Jewish Film Festival | $2,500 |
| KDFC | $2,000 |
| Yiddish Book Center Amherst | $1,000 |
| The Matzeva Foundation | $1,000 |
| NAMI Santa Clara County | $1,000 |
| Gwat Haviva Educational Foundation | $850 |
| Jewish Funders Network | $400 |
| Czestochowa-Radomsko Area Research Group (CRARG) | $250 |
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 (FY23–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 93% 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.
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.
9 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2019, 7 since wound down; 17 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call). Read against FY2019, 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, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k 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
- AFAmerican Friends of Tel Aviv Univ3× · 2023–2025 · $500k · revenue +45%
THE GOOD PEOPLE FUND INC2× · 2019–2023 · $175k · revenue +83%- NYNATIONAL YIDDISH BOOK CENTER INC3× · 2023–2025 · $5k · revenue +22%
Funded once
- OFOshman Family Jewish Community Centerone grant, 2019 · $330k
- JCJewish Community Federation of San Diegoone grant, 2019 · $120k
- DRDirect Relief via Pledgingone grant, 2019 · $50k
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 jewish agency binds jews across ideologies and civilizations together in a worldwide jewish family with israel at its center. it provides the global framework for aliyah, ensures global jewish safety, strengthens jewish identity and…
Our vision is to reignite the zionist spirit and meet the needs of jewish civilization in the twenty-first century by connecting people around the world through the vibrancy and creativity of contemporary israeli culture.
To promote, encourage, aid and advance higher and secondary education, research and training in all branches of knowledge. as the standard bearer of excellence, the university strives to ensure and foster outstanding achievements in all…
To promote, benefit, and support Jewish religious, charitable & educational activities in Israel and the USA.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Funders Network and the most unlike its peers is Lev Zahav Nfp. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
14 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. 14 of the 27 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 PEF ISRAEL ENDOWMENT FUNDS INC ↗
- Who funds American Friends of Tel Aviv Univ ↗
- Who funds THE GOOD PEOPLE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds US FRIENDS OF THE VAN LEER JERUSALEM INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds Israel Democracy Fund ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL YIDDISH BOOK CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds OSHMAN FAMILY JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
- Who funds SILICON VALLEY JEWISH FILM FESTIVAL ↗
- Who funds Lev Zahav NFP ↗
- Who funds NAMI SANTA CLARA COUNTY ↗
- Who funds KQED INC ↗
- Who funds JEWISH GEN INC ↗
- Who funds JEWISH FUNDERS NETWORK ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF HEBREW UNIVERSITY INC ↗
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: National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Amos and Ruth Wilnai 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.
- National Yiddish Book Center Inc — 2% 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.