Skip to content

· Private foundation

Arthur Zimtbaum Foundation Inc

Its FY2017 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$268k
Granted FY2017
11
Grants FY2017
4
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it funds
01FY2017 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2017

  • Under $10k3 grants · $18k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $150k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
$20,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$563k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SCLERODERMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION$100,000
DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE$30,000
HEBREW ACADEMY FOR SPECIAL CHILDREN$25,000
MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL$25,000
SKIDMORE COLLEGE$25,000
GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM$20,000
UNITED JEWISH APPEAL$15,000
EASTER SEAL FOUNDATION OF PALM BEACH$10,000
UNION COLLEGE$7,500
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY$5,000
NYC CENTER FOR MUSIC INTELLECT$5,000
02The need
02

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 (FY17–17) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 41% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 13%DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE: $30k → 16%SCLERODERMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $100k → 10%UNITED JEWISH APPEAL: $15k → 6%SKIDMORE COLLEGE: $25k → 7%UNION COLLEGE: $8k → 12%COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: $5k → 17%HEBREW ACADEMY FOR SPECIAL CHILDREN: $25k → 20%EASTER SEAL FOUNDATION OF PALM BEACH: $10k → 11%MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL: $25k → 16%GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM: $20k → 17%NYC CENTER FOR MUSIC INTELLECT: $5k → 17%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 field
03the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 11 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
5/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Scleroderma Research Foundation: $100,000 · HealthScleroderma Research FoundationDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $30,000 · HealthDana-Farber Cancer Institute IncMASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL: $25,000 · OtherMASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITALGUGGENHEIM MUSEUM: $20,000 · OtherGUGGENHEIM MUSEUMUNITED JEWISH APPEAL: $15,000 · OtherUNITED JEWISH APPEALEASTER SEAL FOUNDATION OF PALM BEACH: $10,000 · OtherEASTER SEAL FOUNDATION OF PALM BEA…UNION COLLEGE: $7,500 · OtherUNION COLLEGENYC CENTER FOR MUSIC INTELLECT: $5,000 · OtherNYC CENTER FOR MUSIC INTELLECTHEBREW ACADEMY FOR SPECIAL CHILDREN INC: $25,000 · EducationHEBREW ACADEMY FOR SPEC…SKIDMORE COLLEGE: $25,000 · EducationSKIDMORE COLLEGETHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $5,000 · EducationTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBI…
Health$130,000Other$82,500Education$55,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetScleroderma Research Foundation: $100,000 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $30,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHEBREW ACADEMY FOR SPECIAL CHILDREN INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSKIDMORE COLLEGE: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $5,000 over 1y, 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Arthur Zimtbaum Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Arthur Zimtbaum Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get 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 · 0–20%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
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 11 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 2017, released 2017. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Arthur Zimtbaum’s filings →

More from the funding graph