Skip to content

· Private foundation

Goldstein Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$148k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$90k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Human Services$1.1MArts & Culture$177kHealth$71kEducation$35kPhilanthropy$26kReligion$25kHousing & Shelter$10kFood & Nutrition$2k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $45k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $90k
$20,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$181
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SYMPHONY SPACE$90,000
JCC OF ROCKLAND$25,000
FRIENDS OF HARMONY HALL$20,000
CONG CHABAD JEWISH CENTER$7,515
UNITED HOSPICE$5,000
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 (FY17–25, $77k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%JCC OF ROCKLAND: $25k → 14%FUND FOR THE AGED INC: $2k → 17%UNITED HOSPICE OF ROCKLAND: $10k → 14%UNITED HOSPICE OF ROCKLAND: $10k → 14%UNITED HOSPICE OF ROCKLAND: $5k → 14%UNITED HOSPICE OF ROCKLAND: $5k → 14%UNITED HOSPICE OF ROCKLAND: $5k → 14%UNITED HOSPICE: $5k → 14%UNITED HOSPICE: $5k → 14%UNITED HOSPICE: $5k → 14%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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 5 repeat orgs$114k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
13

Total granted

$1.3M
$69k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+24%
+27%

Still filing today

60%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 69% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $45k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesPhilanthropyEducationOther
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

  • TS
    THE SYMPHONY SPACE INC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $155k · revenue +11%
  • UH
    UNITED HOSPICE INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $50k · revenue +72%
  • TH
    THE HELP USA FUND INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $10k · revenue +24%

Funded once

  • TE
    THE EDUCATIONAL ALLIANCE INC
    one grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +3%
  • MS
    MOUNT SINAI
    one grant, 2023 · $17k
  • OE
    Operation Equivalency Incgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue +38%
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
Jonathan D Rosen Family Foundation
Human Services
2
Jewish Home Lifecare

Our mission is to empower older adults to enhance purpose and well-being through a portfolio of innovative health care services.

—
3
University of Judaism Foundation
—
4
Adam Michael Rosen Foundation Inc
Philanthropy
5
The Rodel Foundation
Philanthropy
6
Jewish Life Foundation
—
7
Rosenthal Family Foundation
Philanthropy
8
The Joseph Kellman Family Foundation
Philanthropy
9
Joseph and Malka Melohn Foundation
—
10
Abraham and Lillian Rosenberg Foundation
—
11
American Jewish Legacy Inc
Arts & Culture
12
Rockland Home for the Aged Housing Development Fund Company Inc

The organization's mission is to offer low-income senior citizens with safe and affordable housing. the organization makes sure every tenant gets every benefits which they are entitled to, which helps reduce their rent and make living…

Housing & Shelter
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Help Usa Fund Inc; the most unlike its peers is Adam Veritas Rosen Foundation. 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

10 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. 10 of the 21 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
8/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JCC OF ROCKLAND COUNTY: $1,010,000 · OtherJCC OF ROCKLAND COUNTYTHE SYMPHONY SPACE INC: $155,000 · OtherTHE SYMPHONY SPACE INC+12 more: $125,035 · Other+12 moreUNITED HOSPICE INC: $50,000 · Human ServicesJCC ROCKLAND INC: $25,000 · Human Services+1 more: $1,800 · Human ServicesPLEDGELING FOUNDATION: $21,254 · PhilanthropyADAM VERITAS ROSEN FOUNDATION: $3,600 · PhilanthropyCHARITYSMITH NONPROFIT FOUNDATION: $1,035 · PhilanthropyOperation Equivalency Inc: $10,000 · Education
Other$1,290,035Human Services$76,800Philanthropy$25,889Education$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE SYMPHONY SPACE INC: $155,000 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetUNITED HOSPICE INC: $50,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetJCC ROCKLAND INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE EDUCATIONAL ALLIANCE INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPLEDGELING FOUNDATION: $21,254 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetOperation Equivalency Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 7.9% of budgetTHE HELP USA FUND INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetADAM VERITAS ROSEN FOUNDATION: $3,600 over 1y, 100% of budgetFUND FOR THE AGED INC: $1,800 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHARITYSMITH NONPROFIT FOUNDATION: $1,035 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

  • Who funds THE SYMPHONY SPACE INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED HOSPICE INC ↗
  • Who funds JCC ROCKLAND INC ↗
  • Who funds THE EDUCATIONAL ALLIANCE INC ↗
  • Who funds PLEDGELING FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Operation Equivalency Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE HELP USA FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds ADAM VERITAS ROSEN FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds FUND FOR THE AGED INC ↗
  • Who funds CHARITYSMITH NONPROFIT FOUNDATION ↗

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.

Vanguard Charitable Endowment ProgramPA8.3× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Goldstein Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Goldstein Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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.

    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 21 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Goldstein Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph