Skip to content
Gila and David Kolb Family Foundation Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Private foundation

Gila and David Kolb Family Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$24k
Granted FY2023
19
Grants FY2023
3
States reached
$11k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2025.

International$56kReligion$27kEducation$5kHuman Services$1kHealth$931Arts & Culture$360Other$0
02FY2023 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k18 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $11k
$418
Median grant
3
States reached
$308k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONGREGATION AHAVATH TORAH$10,685
JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER$5,000
JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER$1,680
SAR ACADEMY$1,000
CAMP HASC$1,000
MORIAH SCHOOL$1,000
FRIENDS OF MIDRESHET MORIAH$676
CHAI LIFELINE$500
RCCS$500
AMIT CHILDREN INC$418
UNITED HA TZALAH$360
WESTCHESTER TORAH ACADEMY$250
Individual grant recipient$180
SHARSHERET$160
EMUNAH OF AMERICA$150
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 (FY22–23, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%FRIENDS OF MIDRESHET MORIAH: $676 → 6%FRIENDS OF MIDRESHET MORIAH: $360 → 6%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.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$32k · 10 repeat orgs$10k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2023, 0 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
8

Total granted

$32k
$7k

Still filing today

70%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23
ReligionInternationalHealthEducationHuman ServicesArts & CultureOther
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

  • JR
    JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER
    2× · 2022–2023 · $8k · revenue +43%
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF MIDRESHET MORIAH INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $1k · revenue +171%
  • CH
    CAMP HASC INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $1k · revenue +43%

Funded once

  • SA
    SALANTER AKIBA RIVERDALE ACADEMY
    one grant, 2022 · $3k
  • RD
    RABBI'S DISCRETIONARY FUND
    one grant, 2022 · $3k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $500
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
Sherit Isroel
—
2
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
3
Zohar Hatorah Inc

Religious School

Religion
4
University of Judaism Foundation
—
5
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
6
Shaarei Halacha Inc
Philanthropy
7
Bnei Moshe
Philanthropy
8
The Nochim & Rivka Zeldes Foundation
—
9
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
10
American Friends of Oseh Chayil

To further jewish education in israel

Religion
11
Bais Medrash Mayan Hatorah

To provide religious education and services to our students in the tradition of the orthodox jewish faith

—
12
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary

To prepare students for the rabbinate and to issue the traditional certificate of ordination in connection therewith. the seminary is authorized to confer the degree of master of hebrew literature (m.h.l.), doctor of hebrew literature…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Emunah of America Inc; the most unlike its peers is Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemeth Leisrael) 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

12 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. 12 of the 26 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONGREGATION AHAVATH TORAH: $16,481 · OtherCONGREGATION AHAVATH TORAHSALANTER AKIBA RIVERDALE ACADEMY: $2,836 · OtherSALANTER AKIBA RIVERDALE ACADEMYRABBI'S DISCRETIONARY FUND: $2,500 · OtherRABBI'S DISCRETIONARY FUNDIndividual grant recipient: $1,980 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCOLEL CHABAD: $1,018 · OtherSAR ACADEMY: $1,000 · Other+9 more: $2,221 · Other+9 moreJEWISH RESOURCE CENTER: $8,180 · ReligionJEWISH RESOURCE CENTERCAMP HASC INC: $1,036 · ReligionCAMP HASC INCEMUNAH OF AMERICA INC: $1,317 · InternationalAMIT CHILDREN INC: $418 · InternationalJEWISH NATIONAL FUND (KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL) INC: $72 · InternationalMORIAH SCHOOL OF ENGLEWOOD: $1,000 · EducationWESTCHESTER TORAH ACADEMY: $250 · EducationFRIENDS OF MIDRESHET MORIAH INC: $1,036 · Human ServicesCHAI LIFELINE INC: $604 · HealthSharsheret Inc: $327 · HealthFRIENDS OF UNITED HATZALAH INC: $360 · Arts & Culture
Other$28,036Religion$9,216International$1,807Education$1,250Human Services$1,036Health$931Arts & Culture$360

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetJEWISH RESOURCE CENTER: $8,180 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetEMUNAH OF AMERICA INC: $1,317 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF MIDRESHET MORIAH INC: $1,036 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetCAMP HASC INC: $1,036 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMORIAH SCHOOL OF ENGLEWOOD: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $604 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAMIT CHILDREN INC: $418 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF UNITED HATZALAH INC: $360 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSharsheret Inc: $327 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWESTCHESTER TORAH ACADEMY: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMICHIGAN B'NAI B'RITH HILLEL FOUNDATION INC: $165 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH NATIONAL FUND (KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL) INC: $72 over 2y, 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.

Jewish Communal FundNational Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Jewish Communal FundNY14.3× affinity5 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Gila and David Kolb Family Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Gila and David Kolb Family Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 4%
  • Sharsheret Inc: 4% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get 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 · 0–10%
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 Gila and David Kolb Family Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to Gila and David Kolb Family Foundation Inc 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 26 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $24k of grant expense with no grantee named in the published copy. A private foundation itemizes every grant it makes, so a return carrying none has filed its list as an attachment that the public copy does not include. The figures above are therefore from FY2023, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Gila and David Kolb Family’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