· Private foundation
Charles R & Winifred R Weber 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.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 75% of Charles R & Winifred R Weber Foundation’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k10 grants · $190k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $410k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Big Brothers Big Sisters of New York City Inc | $200,000 |
| Calvary Hospital | $60,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $50,000 |
| Yeshiva Sharai Arazim | $50,000 |
| American Friends of United Hatzolah | $50,000 |
| Congregation Khal Tiferes Boruch | $30,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $30,000 |
| Ohr Shmuel | $25,000 |
| Bonei Olam Inc | $25,000 |
| Yeshiva Gedolah of Fallsburg | $15,500 |
| Saint Joseph's University | $15,000 |
| Oasis | $15,000 |
| Project Heritage of Greater Miami Inc | $14,500 |
| Providence College | $10,000 |
| Torah Academy for Girls | $10,000 |
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 (FY20–24, $158k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, 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.
15 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 9 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, 55% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $271k 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
- CHCALVARY HOSPITAL INC4× · 2021–2024 · $250k · revenue +0%
- SJSAINT JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY6× · 2019–2024 · $180k · revenue +34%
- BOBonei Olam Inc5× · 2020–2024 · $118k · revenue +77%
Funded once
- CBCONGREGATION BAIS SHALOM INCone grant, 2021 · $50k
- YGYeshiva Gedolah of Elkin Parkone grant, 2021 · $50k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · $30k
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.
Raise funds for religious and educational institutions in the state of israel, and to provide educational and social improvement for the children of kiryat arba, israel.
Inspire and assist each student in his quest to nurture a personal relationship with hashem, develop and refine his character, immerse himself in serious torah scholarship and attain the knowledge and skills necessary to be an articulate…
To further jewish education in israel
Furtherance of jewish education
The yeshiva university high schools has as its educational mission to teach and perpetuate the values of torah and secular studies. see schedule o.
A jewish secondary school which seeks to inculcate its students with high character and religious values to produce future religious leaders
Religious School
To instill in its students a personal love for and commitment tohashem, the study and practice of torah, halacha, and jewish values asa way of life, and a love for the state of israel and the jewishpeople.
To operate a school in the tradition of the orthodox jewish faith.
To provide financial support to the yeshiva knesseth yisroel institution, its rabbis, and students, and lend support to other religious institutions in israel and around the world, with the goal of furthering jewish values among the jewish…
To support religious, charitable, scientific, literary and/or educational programs
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Yeshiva Ktana of Passaic and the most unlike its peers is Project Heritage of Greater Miami. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 27 years old; the field is 15. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 21% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
17 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. 17 of the 40 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 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF NEW YORK CITY INC ↗
- Who funds CALVARY HOSPITAL INC ↗
- Who funds SAINT JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Bonei Olam Inc ↗
- Who funds PROJECT HERITAGE OF GREATER MIAMI ↗
- Who funds CALVARY FUND INC ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA EITZ CHAIM OF HILLSIDE INC ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA SHAAREI ARAZIM ↗
- Who funds OASIS - A HAVEN FOR WOMEN & CHILDREN INC ↗
- Who funds TEE OFF FORE LIFE INC ↗
- Who funds OHR SHMUEL INC ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA KTANA OF PASSAIC ↗
- Who funds BAIS YAAKOV OF SOUTH FALLSBURG INC ELIMELECH TRESS ↗
- Who funds THE ADENOID CYSTIC CARCINOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PROVIDENCE COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YIRGUN YRA ↗
- Who funds IN HIS IMAGE ↗
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: Jewish Communal Fund · The Ojc Fund · National Society for Hebrew Day Schools · Yr Foundation Trust · The Fishoff Family Foundation · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Deutsch Family Foundation · Reyim Ahuvim Foundation · Albert & Melissa Sutton Foundation · The Jmg Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust
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 Charles R & Winifred R Weber 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.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Charles R & Winifred R Weber Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Charles R & Winifred R Weber 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.