· Private foundation
Gitlitz Family Foundation
Its FY2020 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
95% of Gitlitz Family Foundation’s FY2020 grant dollars went to Aspen Community Foundation, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2020 names 6 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2019, the last year Gitlitz Family Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 6 organizations, $26k. It is dated, not current.
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 FY2017–2020.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NATIONAL JEWISH HEALTH | $9,100 |
| THE BUDDY PROGRAM | $9,000 |
| ASPEN JUNIOR GOLF FOUNDATION | $2,160 |
| NESHAMA CENTER | $2,000 |
| ASPEN HOPE CENTER | $1,678 |
| ASPEN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
| COMMUNITY FOOD BANK OF NEW JERSEY | $1,000 |
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 (FY17–20) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 91% 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.
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 +67% since the first grant, against +59% for the ones you funded once.
8 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2019, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call). Read against FY2019, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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 FY2020, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k 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
NATIONAL JEWISH HEALTH3× · 2017–2019 · $27k · revenue +50%- IIIMPACTISRAEL INC2× · 2018–2020 · $15k · revenue +89%
- TBTHE BUDDY PROGRAM INC3× · 2017–2019 · $15k · revenue +52%
Funded once
- WWWOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARSone grant, 2018 · $25k · revenue +19%
- TNTHE NATIONAL JEWISH CENTER FOR LEARNING AND LEADERSHIPone grant, 2018 · $25k
- MMMIZEL MUSEUMone grant, 2017 · $10k
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.
Provide recreational, cultural, education, and social programs to the community.
To advance the public understanding of science through lifelong discovery, exploration and education.
To ensure a jewish future by challenging minds and nurturing souls with a focus on academic excellence and jewish learning.
Aces' mission is to inspire a life-long commitment to the earth by providing innovative and immersive programming for all ages.
We are a home for community that builds relationships, embraces differences, and embodies what jewish life can be.
The Jewish Film Institute champions bold films and filmmakers that expand and evolve the Jewish story for audiences everywhere. Through its exhibition and artist development programs, JFI celebrates the spirit of film, inquiry,…
The aspen group is a non-partisan, by invitation only, healthcare forum. our members, with a track record of leadership in both the public and private sectors, share ideas, make recommendations, and serve as a resource to policy makers,…
To inspire the spirit of the child and elicit academic excellence through educational artistry.
AJC's mission is to enhance the wellbeing of the Jewish people and Israel, and to advance human rights and democratic values in the United States and around the world. In pursuit of this mission, AJC advances democratic principles, fights…
Jcc association strengthens jewish life in north america through direct service to affiliate jccs, ym-ywha's and camps and by providing leadership and guidance to the jcc movement. in addition, we serve jewish personnel in the armed forces…
We edify and inspire students and educators to grow, learn and lead.
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Aspen Institute Inc and the most unlike its peers is National Jewish Health. 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 35 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% 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 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.
20 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. 20 of the 26 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 ASPEN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL JEWISH HEALTH ↗
- Who funds WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS ↗
- Who funds IMPACTISRAEL INC ↗
- Who funds THE BUDDY PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds Neshama Center ↗
- Who funds ASPEN HOPE CENTER ↗
- Who funds ASPEN JUNIOR GOLF FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ASPEN EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Community Food Bank Of New Jersey Inc ↗
- Who funds THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds JEWISHColorado ↗
- Who funds MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC ↗
- Who funds THE KEMPE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds JAZZ AT ASPEN-SNOWMASS ↗
- Who funds Transplant Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds THE ASPEN COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds SPRINGFIELD JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds JUDI'S HOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION 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: Aspen Community Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Gitlitz 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.
- Springfield Jewish Community Center Inc — 14% of income from government
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.