Skip to content
Grossberg Abrams Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Grossberg Abrams Foundation

Its FY2023 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$6.1M
Granted FY2023
7
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$1.7M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2023.

Religion$6.1MPhilanthropy$141kHuman Services$126kInternational$31kEducation$30kRecreation & Sports$30kEmployment$20kCivil Rights$9kOther$0
02FY2023 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $125k
  • $250k+6 grants · $6.0M
$659,341
Median grant
1
States reached
$67k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ISAAC GEORGIA ABRAMS FAMILY FOUNDAT$1,729,962
NAT GEORGIA ABRAMS FAMILY FOUNDATIO$1,729,962
NAT GEORGIA ABRAMS FAMILY FOUNDATIO$659,342
ISAAC GEORGIA ABRAMS FAMILY FOUNDAT$659,341
NAT GEORGIA ABRAMS FAMILY FOUNDATIO$606,546
ISAAC GEORGIA ABRAMS FAMILY FOUNDAT$606,545
ABRAMS RAMAT GAN FOUNDATION$125,000
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 (FY20–21, $75k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%JCC EAST BAY: $40k → 10%JCC EAST BAY: $35k → 10%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.

5%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$326k · 15 repeat orgs$6.1M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +45% since the first grant, against -1% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2023, 15 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
4

Total granted

$326k
$19k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+45%
-1%

Still filing today

47%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6.1M went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’23
PhilanthropyHuman ServicesEducationReligionArts & CultureCivil 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

  • JC
    JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF THE EAST BAY
    2× · 2020–2021 · $75k · revenue +585%
  • TJ
    TAWONGA JEWISH COMMUNITY CORPORATION
    2× · 2020–2021 · $30k · revenue +82%
  • JF
    Jewish Film Institute
    2× · 2020–2021 · $8k · revenue +13%

Funded once

  • JF
    JEWISH FUNDERS NETWORK
    one grant, 2021 · $6k · revenue -1%
  • SB
    Santa Barbara Hillel
    one grant, 2020 · $6k · revenue -23%
  • IF
    ISRAEL FREE LOAN ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2020 · $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

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
University of Judaism Foundation
—
2
Eastern European Jewish Heritage Foundation
Philanthropy
3
The Bnai Jacob Foundation
—
4
Jewish Life Foundation
—
5
Foundation for Conservative Judiasm of South Florida
—
6
National Council of Jewish Women Inc Jersey Hills Section
—
7
Jewish Center for Justice

Founded in 2017, the Jewish Center for Justice (JCJ) is a distinguished social justice, education, and leadership development platform that meets each individual where they are in their journey to inspire change. JCJ's mission is to…

Human Services
8
The Steinhardt Foundation for Jewish Life Inc
Religion
9
University of Southern California Hillel Foundation

To create an informed, celebratory and satisfying jewish community for students at the university of southern california, to deepen jewish identity through social, intellectual and spiritual participation, to offer diversified…

—
10
Hillel of San Luis Obispo

Enriching the lives of Jewish students so they may enrich the Jewish people and the world.

Religion
11
Hillel Foundation at Miami University

Hillel at Miami University, the center of Jewish life on campus, seeks to engage, connect, and empower students to explore their Jewish identity creating a vibrant Jewish community and inspiring the next generation of Jewish leaders.

—
12
The University of Iowa Louis Shulman Hillel Foundation

The mission of Iowa Hillel is to enhance the lives of Jewish students at the University of Iowa, so they may enrich the Jewish people and the world. Iowa Hillel envisions a world for our students where they find a community here at Iowa…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Funders Network; the most unlike its peers is Abrams Ramat Gan 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

13 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. 13 of the 23 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/13
Grantees still filing
7/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NAT GEORGIA ABRAMS FAMILY FOUNDATIO: $2,995,850 · OtherNAT GEORGIA ABRAMS FAMILY FOUNDATIOISAAC GEORGIA ABRAMS FAMILY FOUNDAT: $2,995,848 · OtherISAAC GEORGIA ABRAMS FAMILY FOUNDAT+11 more: $183,136 · OtherABRAMS RAMAT GAN FOUNDATION: $125,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FUNDERS NETWORK: $6,300 · PhilanthropySanta Barbara Hillel: $6,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF THE EAST BAY: $75,000 · Human ServicesINSTITUTE FOR CURRICULUM SERVICES: $30,000 · EducationTAWONGA JEWISH COMMUNITY CORPORATION: $30,000 · ReligionNEW ISRAEL FUND: $24,000 · InternationalACTION FOR POST-SOVIET JEWRY INC: $2,000 · InternationalJewish Film Institute: $8,000 · Arts & CultureANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $5,000 · Civil Rights
Other$6,174,834Philanthropy$137,300Human Services$75,000Education$30,000Religion$30,000International$26,000Arts & Culture$8,000Civil Rights$5,000

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 COMMUNITY CENTER OF THE EAST BAY: $75,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetTAWONGA JEWISH COMMUNITY CORPORATION: $30,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetNEW ISRAEL FUND: $24,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBERKELEY HILLEL: $16,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetJEWISH COMMUNITY FEDERATION OF THE GREATER EAST BAY: $10,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetJewish Film Institute: $8,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetMAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger: $7,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetJEWISH FUNDERS NETWORK: $6,300 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSanta Barbara Hillel: $6,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $5,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetACTION FOR POST-SOVIET JEWRY INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.9% 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.

Nat and Georgia Abram…Lisa & Douglas Goldma…Jewish Community Fede…Taube Foundation for …The Jewish Community …Koret FoundationAmerican Endowment Fo…Morgan Stanley Global…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…
Nat and Georgia Abrams Family FoundationCA17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Nat and Georgia Abrams Family Foundation · Lisa & Douglas Goldman Fund · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · Taube Foundation for Jewish Life and Culture · The Jewish Community Foundation · Koret Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc

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 Grossberg Abrams Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Grossberg Abrams Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%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
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 Grossberg Abrams Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Grossberg Abrams 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 23 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.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Grossberg Abrams’ 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