Skip to content
Ben B and Joyce E Eisenberg Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Ben B and Joyce E Eisenberg 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.

$2.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
25
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$500k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0187% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Human Services$2.3MHealth$1.8MRecreation & Sports$925kScience & Tech$910kInternational$243kCivil Rights$144kReligion$126kArts & Culture$93kOther$0
02FY2025 · 25 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $14k
  • $10k–50k13 grants · $265k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $350k
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.5M
$20,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$70M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LOS ANGELES JEWISH HEALTH$500,000
AMERICAN COMMITTEE FOR THE WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE$500,000
ISRAEL TENNIS AND EDUCATION CENTER$500,000
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER$100,000
SAINT JOHN HEALTH CENTER FOUNDATION$100,000
CALIFORNIA ONCOLOGY RESEARCH INST$100,000
SMIDT HEART INSTITUTE AT CEDARDS-SINAI$50,000
CHABAD OF GREATER HOLMBY HILLS$40,000
EDUCATE TOMORROW'S PARENTS$36,000
SINAI TEMPLE$25,000
Individual grant recipient$25,000
COALITION TO ABOLISH SLAVERY & TRAFFICKING$20,000
ISRAEL PARASPORT CENTER$20,000
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MIGDAL OHR$18,000
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE$18,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY24–25, $111k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 45% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%EDUCATE TOMORROW'S PARENTS: $36k → 8%EDUCATE TOMORROW'S PARENTS: $25k → 8%LOS ANGELES POLICE FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%LOS ANGELES POLICE FOUNDATION: $5k → 14%WESTSIDE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER: $25k → 14%WESTSIDE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER: $10k → 14%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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

56%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.8M · 21 repeat orgs$2.9M to everyone else

21 repeat relationships: 19 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

21
40

Total granted

$3.8M
$2.9M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+21%
+30%

Still filing today

52%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $92k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’18’24’25
Human ServicesHealthInternationalEducationArts & CultureYouth DevelopmentOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • AC
    AMERICAN COMMITTEE FOR THE WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $860k · revenue +130%
  • CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER
    3× · 2018–2025 · $250k · revenue +52%
  • AL
    ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE
    3× · 2018–2025 · $86k · revenue +80%

Funded once

  • LA
    Los Angeles Jewish Homes for the Aging
    one grant, 2018 · $2.1M
  • IT
    ISRAEL TENNIS CENTERS FOUNDATION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $200k · revenue +80%
  • C
    CORI
    one grant, 2018 · $100k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its 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
University of Southern California

The central mission of the university of southern california is the development of human beings and society as a whole through the cultivation and enrichment of the human mind and spirit. the principal means by which our mission is…

Education
2
California Institute of Contemporary Art
—
3
Doheny Eye Institute

To further the conservation, improvement and restoration of human eyesight" (mrs. doheny - 1947).

—
4
Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles

We steward $1.5 billion in charitable assets through donor-advised funds, endowments, and other giving vehicles. partnering with 1,400 individuals, families, and organizations, we build enduring legacies and multigenerational impact. in…

Philanthropy
5
The Contemporary Jewish Museum

The contemporary jewish museum (the cjm) makes the diversity of the jewish experience relevant for a twenty-first-century audience through innovative exhibitions and programs that educate, challenge, and inspire.

Arts & Culture
6
Academy Museum Foundation

The academy museum of motion pictures advances the understanding, celebration, and preservation of cinema through inclusive and accessible exhibitions, screenings, programs, initiatives, and collections. welcoming visitors from los angeles…

Arts & Culture
7
Glaucoma Institute of Beverly Hills Research Foundation Inc
Health
8
The California Endowment
Philanthropy
9
The Jonsson Cancer Center Foundation

The jonsson cancer center foundation is the single most important vehicle for raising private funds for cancer research at ucla and plays a key role in advancing cancer treatments and care. please see schedule o for additional information.

—
10
California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy

To harness the power of the human immune system and advanced computing technologies to create and translate scientific discoveries into next generation vaccines and therapies for prevention, control and cure of chronic diseases, enabling…

Health
11
Los Angeles World Affairs Council and Town Hall

The organization is a non-partisan, membership based speakers' forum that connects business leaders, community members, and engaged individuals with shared interest in local, national, and global affairs. it provides an open and accessible…

International
12
Los Angeles Medical Center Foundation
Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Saint John's Health Center Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Kids of Ukraine Inc. 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

29 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. 29 of the 67 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
29/29
Grantees still filing
17/29
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Los Angeles Jewish Homes for the Aging: $2,064,910 · OtherLos Angeles Jewish Homes for the AgingISRAEL TENNIS AND EDUCATION CENTER: $860,000 · OtherISRAEL TENNIS AND EDUCATION CENTERLOS ANGELES JEWISH HEALTH: $849,000 · OtherLOS ANGELES JEWISH HEALTH+46 more: $901,400 · Other+46 moreAMERICAN COMMITTEE FOR THE WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE INC: $860,000 · InternationalAMERICAN COMMITTEE…ISRAEL TENNIS CENTERS FOUNDATION INC: $200,000 · InternationalISRAEL TENNIS CENT…+1 more: $10,000 · InternationalCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $250,000 · HealthCEDARS-SINA…SAINT JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER FOUNDATION: $200,000 · HealthSAINT JOHN'…CALIFORNIA ONCOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC: $200,000 · HealthCALIFORNIA …+2 more: $5,500 · HealthEDUCATE TOMORROW'S PARENTS: $61,000 · Human ServicesWESTSIDE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $50,000 · Human ServicesLOS ANGELES POLICE FOUNDATION: $15,000 · Human ServicesTHE FRIENDSHIP FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Human ServicesTHE PEOPLE CONCERN: $5,000 · Human Services+1 more: $1,000 · Human ServicesANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $86,000 · Civil RightsGRIFFITH OBSERVATORY FOUNDATION: $50,000 · Science & TechAmerican Friends of Migdal OHR: $28,000 · Youth DevelopmentGIRL SCOUTS OF GREATER LOS ANGELES: $1,000 · Youth Development
Other$4,675,310International$1,070,000Health$655,500Human Services$137,000Civil Rights$86,000Science & Tech$50,000Youth Development$29,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAMERICAN COMMITTEE FOR THE WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE INC: $860,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $250,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSAINT JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER FOUNDATION: $200,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetCALIFORNIA ONCOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC: $200,000 over 2y, 36% of budgetISRAEL TENNIS CENTERS FOUNDATION INC: $200,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $86,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetEDUCATE TOMORROW'S PARENTS: $61,000 over 2y, 60% of budgetWESTSIDE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $50,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetGRIFFITH OBSERVATORY FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetAmerican Friends of Migdal OHR: $28,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetGREATER LOS ANGELES ZOOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION: $28,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE THALIANS: $26,500 over 2y, 6.5% of budgetHarmony Project: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetCAMP RAMAH IN CALIFORNIA INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCOALITION TO ABOLISH SLAVERY & TRAFFICKING: $20,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetLOS ANGELES POLICE FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCentral Fund of Israel: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGEFFEN PLAYHOUSE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetKIDS OF UKRAINE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetTHE FRIENDSHIP FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHE PEOPLE CONCERN: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINNER-CITY ARTS: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS OF GREATER LOS ANGELES: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ACHIEVABLE FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHILDREN'S BURN FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHILLCREST COUNTRY CLUB CHARITABLE FUND: $500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCadence Park PTSA: $500 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

  • Who funds AMERICAN COMMITTEE FOR THE WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE INC ↗
  • Who funds CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ↗
  • Who funds SAINT JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA ONCOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC ↗
  • Who funds ISRAEL TENNIS CENTERS FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
  • Who funds EDUCATE TOMORROW'S PARENTS ↗
  • Who funds WESTSIDE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds GRIFFITH OBSERVATORY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds American Friends of Migdal OHR ↗
  • Who funds GREATER LOS ANGELES ZOOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds THE THALIANS ↗
  • Who funds Harmony Project ↗
  • Who funds CAMP RAMAH IN CALIFORNIA INC ↗
  • Who funds COALITION TO ABOLISH SLAVERY & TRAFFICKING ↗
  • Who funds LOS ANGELES POLICE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Central Fund of Israel ↗
  • Who funds GEFFEN PLAYHOUSE INC ↗

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.

Jewish Community Foun…California Community …Sempra FoundationThe Bank of America C…Vanguard Charitable E…National Philanthropi…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Jewish Community Foundation of Los AngelesCA16.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · California Community Foundation · Sempra Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Ben B and Joyce E Eisenberg Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ben B and Joyce E Eisenberg Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Ben B and Joyce E Eisenberg Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Ben B and Joyce E Eisenberg 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.

    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 67 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Ben B and Joyce E Eisenberg’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