Skip to content
August 11 2003 Trust Ua at a glance

· Private foundation

August 11 2003 Trust Ua

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$2k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$2k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$31kArts & Culture$30kFood & Nutrition$15kInternational$11kEducation$5kReligion$5k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$612k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMERICA ISRAEL FRIENDSHIP LEAGUE$1,500
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 50% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 14%NATL TAY-SACHS ALLIED DISEASES ASSO: $15k → 16%PACIFIC SOUND AND VISION: $10k → 14%City Harvest Inc: $15k → 17%MENACHEM EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $5k → 20%MULTIPLE MYELOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATIO: $13k → 9%SUNDANCE INSTITUTE: $20k → 5%HILLEL FOUNDATION AT MIAMI UNIVERSI: $5k → 12%AMERICA ISRAEL FRIENDSHIP LEAGUE: $2k → 17%Russian Children's Welfare Society: $8k → 17%JEWISH NATIONAL FUND: $2k → 17%ALAN T BROWN FOUNDATION: $2k → 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

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Abraham & Florence Mendel Foundation
—
2
University of Judaism Foundation
—
3
Joseph and Malka Melohn Foundation
—
4
Jewish Life Foundation
—
5
The Steinhardt Foundation for Jewish Life Inc
Religion
6
Bar Ilan University in Israel Inc

Biu produces students who excel in the sciences, humanities, law, engineering, business & the arts.

—
7
Melchizedek Foundation
Philanthropy
8
Israel Kuzminsky Memorial Foundation
—
9
Chaim Maleh Foundation
Philanthropy
10
The Goldenberg Family Foundation
Philanthropy
11
The University of Iowa Louis Shulman Hillel Foundation

The mission of Iowa Hillel is to enhance the lives of Jewish students at the University of Iowa, so they may enrich the Jewish people and the world. Iowa Hillel envisions a world for our students where they find a community here at Iowa…

—
12
Ari and Esther Munk Family Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is America-Israel Friendship League Inc; the most unlike its peers is Hillel Foundation at Miami University. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

9 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. 9 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)
8/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NATL TAY-SACHS ALLIED DISEASES ASSO: $15,000 · OtherNATL TAY-SACHS ALLIED DISEASES ASSOPACIFIC SOUND AND VISION: $10,000 · OtherPACIFIC SOUND AND VISIONHillel Foundation at Miami University: $5,000 · OtherHillel Foundation at Miami UniversityTHE ALAN T BROWN FOUNDATION: $2,400 · OtherTHE ALAN T BROWN FOUNDATIONSundance Institute: $20,000 · Arts & CultureSundance InstituteCITY HARVEST INC: $15,000 · Food & NutritionCITY HARVEST INCTHE MULTIPLE MYELOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $13,250 · HealthTHE MULTIPLE MY…Russian Children's Welfare Society Inc: $7,500 · InternationalRussian Child…JEWISH NATIONAL FUND (KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL) INC: $2,400 · InternationalJEWISH NATION…AMERICA-ISRAEL FRIENDSHIP LEAGUE INC: $1,500 · InternationalAMERICA-ISRAE…MENACHEM EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · Education
Other$32,400Arts & Culture$20,000Food & Nutrition$15,000Health$13,250International$11,400Education$5,000

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 budgetSundance Institute: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCITY HARVEST INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE MULTIPLE MYELOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $13,250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRussian Children's Welfare Society Inc: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMENACHEM EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetHillel Foundation at Miami University: $5,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetJEWISH NATIONAL FUND (KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL) INC: $2,400 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ALAN T BROWN FOUNDATION: $2,400 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetAMERICA-ISRAEL FRIENDSHIP LEAGUE INC: $1,500 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

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.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO6.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 August 11 2003 Trust Ua funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from August 11 2003 Trust Ua. 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report 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, FY20–25
    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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on August 11 2003 Trust Ua’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