· Private foundation
Castleman Family Foundation
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.
Read this first · the figures below need context
60% of Castleman Family Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to American Society For Technion - Israel Institute Of Technology Inc, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 2 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.
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 FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $8k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $25k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| AMERICAN TECHNION SOCIETY | $50,000 |
| LAZAR FOUNDATION FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS | $15,000 |
| NOVA TRIBE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION | $10,000 |
| LOS ANGELES GUILD FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH | $6,000 |
| THE LIVING LEGENDS FOUNDATION | $1,800 |
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 (FY24–24, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 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.
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 +244% since the first grant, against +43% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 2 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, 64% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $12k 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 THE ISRAEL MUSEUM6× · 2017–2023 · $86k · revenue -40%
- MFMASKET FOUNDATION3× · 2018–2023 · $30k
- LALOS ANGELES GUILD FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH3× · 2022–2024 · $26k · revenue +244%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2019 · $25k
- TJTHE JEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELESone grant, 2019 · $20k
- AIASSET INDIA FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $10k · revenue +30%
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 principal and primary intent of the organization is to support kohelet policy forum (the "forum"), a jerusalem-based non-profit policy center founded in 2012, comprised of leading academics and researchers.
The Impact Forum is an exclusive network of philanthropists. We are connecting philanthropists that support each others initiatives and collaborate to empower and meet with exceptional non-profit organizations to fight antisemitism,…
The mission of the ari fuld project is to continue the activities, projects and legacy of ari fuld. to support the jewish people, the land and torah of israel. to promulgate and implement the teachings of ari fuld.
to address the deep social, economic, ethical, religious and ideological rifts that exist within Israeli society.
To provide funding for medical and humanitarian projects throughout israel. the organization might make grants to other organizations providing such services, including, but not limited to, evp israel and israel emergency aid fund, israeli…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of the Israel Museum and the most unlike its peers is Los Angeles Guild for Reproductive Health. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
8 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. 8 of the 15 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 AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL MUSEUM ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES GUILD FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ↗
- Who funds ASSET INDIA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds American Friends of Israel Philharmonic Orchestra ↗
- Who funds LIVING LEGENDS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF GIVAT HAVIVA ↗
- Who funds American Heart Association Inc ↗
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Castleman Family 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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.