· Private foundation
Gale Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k5 grants · $100k
- $50k–250k12 grants · $1.1M
- $250k+2 grants · $600k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| The Shalem Foundation | $350,000 |
| Ariel University Foundation | $250,000 |
| Lamar University Foundation | $150,000 |
| Central Fund of Israel | $150,000 |
| Institute on Religion & Public | $100,000 |
| Foundation for Cultural Review | $100,000 |
| Lamar Institute of Tech Found | $75,000 |
| Brothers For Life | $75,000 |
| Commentary | $75,000 |
| Cato Institute | $75,000 |
| Friends of the IDF | $75,000 |
| Federalist Society | $75,000 |
| Manhattan Institute | $50,000 |
| American Friends of Leket Israel | $50,000 |
| Tikvah Fund | $45,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 87% of your 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +46% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
18 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 58% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $735k 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
- TSThe Shalem Foundation5× · 2021–2025 · $950k · revenue +147%
- FFFOUNDATION FOR CULTURAL REVIEW7× · 2019–2025 · $890k · revenue +27%
- CICOMMENTARY INC7× · 2019–2025 · $797k · revenue +84%
Funded once
- LILamar Institute of Technologyone grant, 2020 · $1.0M
- UOUniver of Alabama Neurologyone grant, 2020 · $250k
- UOUniv of Alabama Cntr for Neurologyone grant, 2022 · $250k
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.
Through its news service and public programs, Israel 21c educates individuals and groups about comtemporary life in Israel providing news and information on the people of Israel, its culture and business and scientific achievements.
The shalom hartman institute (shi) is a leading research and educational center serving israel and world jewry. we work to enrich the moral and spiritual life of israel and the jewish people, deepen the commitment to pluralism and israel's…
First Look Institute supports fearless investigative journalism, innovative and cinematic nonfiction filmmaking, and press freedom initiatives to protect the right to a free and open society and press.
Our vision is to reignite the zionist spirit and meet the needs of jewish civilization in the twenty-first century by connecting people around the world through the vibrancy and creativity of contemporary israeli culture.
The jewish electorate institute (jei) is an independent, non-partisan 501(c)(3) organization that surveys, interprets, reports, and educates the public about the perspectives, voting behaviors, and motivations of the american jewish…
To raise awareness in the united states and provide support for the open university of israel's vital mission of making access to higher education available to capable and motivated students from all sectors of israeli society.
To further jewish education in israel
Offering jewish adults a personal connection to judaism,fostering a sense of belonging to the greater jewishcommunity, and building bridges between jews of allbackgrounds. to date, over 74,000 men and women from 39countries have been…
To promote and support jewish religious charitable and educational activities in israel & usa.
Support the hebrew univ. of jerusalem, israel's foremost center of higher edu. & research.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies and the most unlike its peers is Sabinal Alumni. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 25 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
29 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. 29 of the 59 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 FRIENDS OF ARIEL UNIVERSITY INC ↗
- Who funds The Shalem Foundation ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR CULTURAL REVIEW ↗
- Who funds THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY FOR LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES ↗
- Who funds COMMENTARY INC ↗
- Who funds Project on Fair Representation Inc ↗
- Who funds MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH INC ↗
- Who funds Lamar University Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds Donors Trust Inc ↗
- Who funds Central Fund of Israel ↗
- Who funds CATO INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds The Louis D Brandeis Center Inc ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES ↗
- Who funds SLEEP IN HEAVENLY PEACE INC ↗
- Who funds THE TIKVAH FUND ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF UNITED HATZALAH INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF LEKET ISRAEL INC ↗
- Who funds OPENDOR MEDIA INC ↗
- Who funds Some Other Place ↗
- Who funds ENCOUNTER FOR CULTURE AND EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF IR DAVID INC ↗
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: Donors Trust Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Greater Houston Community Foundation · The US Charitable Gift Trust · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Gale 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.