Skip to content
Edward & Rose Berman Legacy Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Edward & Rose Berman Legacy Foundation

The Edward and Rose Berman Legacy Foundations primary purpose is to achieve charitable goals by acting as a supporting organization for the benefit of the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh.

$145k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

69% of Edward & Rose Berman Legacy Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Jewish Federation Of Greater Pittsburgh, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 3 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Organizations named directly on the return

4
’21
2
’22
2
’23
2
’24
3
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Philanthropy$965kReligion$609kCivil Rights$17kHuman Services$10kHealth$5k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $45k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
$25,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh$100,000
Hillel Jewish University Center$25,000
Anti-Defamation League$10,000
Aleph Institute$10,000
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 (FY21–22, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Jewish Association on Aging: $5k → 11%Jewish Community Center: $5k → 11%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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$618k · 3 repeat orgs$23k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +253% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
4

Total granted

$618k
$23k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+253%
+26%

Still filing today

67%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesCivil RightsOther
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

  • HJ
    HILLEL JEWISH UNIVERSITY CENTER
    4× · 2021–2025 · $578k · revenue -5% · 33% of their budget
  • AI
    ALEPH INSTITUTE INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $24k
  • AL
    ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE
    2× · 2023–2025 · $17k · revenue +253%

Funded once

  • TS
    TEMPLE SINAI
    one grant, 2021 · $8k
  • YM
    YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN'S HEBREW ASSOCIATION AND IRENE KAUFMANN CENTgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue +26%
  • HH
    HIGHMARK HEALTH
    one grant, 2021 · $5k
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
04the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 9 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
4/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH: $715,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGHJEWISH COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF GREATER HARTFORD INC: $250,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF GREATER HARTFORD INCHILLEL JEWISH UNIVERSITY CENTER: $577,500 · OtherHILLEL JEWISH UNIVERSITY CENTERALEPH INSTITUTE INC: $24,000 · Other+2 more: $12,500 · OtherANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $16,500 · Civil RightsYOUNG MEN AND WOMEN'S HEBREW ASSOCIATION AND IRENE KAUFMANN CENT: $5,000 · Human ServicesJEWISH ASSOCIATION ON AGING: $5,000 · Human Services
Philanthropy$965,000Other$614,000Civil Rights$16,500Human Services$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH: $715,000 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetHILLEL JEWISH UNIVERSITY CENTER: $577,500 over 4y, 33% of budgetJEWISH COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF GREATER HARTFORD INC: $250,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $16,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetYOUNG MEN AND WOMEN'S HEBREW ASSOCIATION AND IRENE KAUFMANN CENT: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH ASSOCIATION ON AGING: $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.

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.

The Philip Chosky Cha…The Fine FoundationStaunton Farm Foundat…Jewish Federation of …The Pittsburgh Founda…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Philip Chosky Charitable & Educational FoundationPA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Philip Chosky Charitable & Educational Foundation · The Fine Foundation · Staunton Farm Foundation 540-054 Dba Staunton Farm Foundation · Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh · The Pittsburgh Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Edward & Rose Berman Legacy Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Edward & Rose Berman Legacy Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%10%23%40%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
    1get no government money at all
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Edward & Rose Berman Legacy Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Edward & Rose Berman Legacy 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 9 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 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 Edward & Rose Berman Legacy’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