Skip to content
H Gross Family Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

H Gross Family Foundation Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$43k
Granted FY2024still arriving
19
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

Religion$82kHuman Services$18kInternational$15kHealth$12kEducation$6kPhilanthropy$4kFood & Nutrition$3kHousing & Shelter$2kOther$0
02FY2024 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$20k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GEMACH ZICHRON MOSHE$5,000
YESHIVA KETANA OF MANHATTAN$5,000
GEMILOS CHASADIM CHASDEI MOSHE$4,300
BAIS TZIPORA OF MANHATTAN$3,600
BIKUR CHOLIM OF MANHATTAN$3,000
CONGREGATION AHAVATH CHESED$3,000
BAIS AVROHOM$2,500
SAMCHAINU$2,500
Individual grant recipient$1,800
CONGREGATION BETH MENACHEM OF GLOGEV$1,500
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF HASHEVEINU$1,500
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD LEAH$1,500
TORAH COMMUNITY FUND INC$1,500
Individual grant recipient$1,500
COMMUNITY TORAH CENTERS$1,500
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 (FY23–23, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, 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%YAD CHAYA INC: $2k → 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.

32%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$46k · 9 repeat orgs$99k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue -12% since the first grant, against -15% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
41

Total granted

$46k
$76k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-12%
-15%

Still filing today

33%
12%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 48% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $22k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24
ReligionInternationalHealthHuman ServicesPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • TC
    TORAH COMMUNITY FUND INC
    3× · 2021–2024 · $12k · revenue +5%
  • YK
    YESHIVA KETANA OF MANHATTAN
    3× · 2021–2024 · $7k
  • CA
    CONGREGATION AHAVATH CHESED
    2× · 2023–2024 · $7k

Funded once

  • YK
    Yeshiva Ketana of Manhattan
    one grant, 2022 · $12k
  • TC
    Torah Community Fund Inc.
    one grant, 2022 · $5k
  • AF
    AMER FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER B'EZRI
    one grant, 2023 · $4k
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
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
2
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
3
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
4
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Zichron Tzvi Elimelech

Assists thousands of needy individuals, families and multiplecharities in Israel and North America.

—
6
Zichron Meshilem Feish Inc

Provides finacial assistance to needy individuals and to religious, charitable organizations

—
7
Shaarei Halacha Inc
Philanthropy
8
American Friends of Chasdei Lev

To provide clothing and food, distribute funds and pay third-party bills to and for the benefit of needy individuals and families, in a dignified manner, through chasdei lev.

Religion
9
Zicron Eliyahu Inc
—
10
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
—
11
Ohr Meir Ubracha

The organization provides financial assistance to victims of acts of terrorism in the state of israel.

Philanthropy
12
Zichron Moshe Elihu Tzedoka Fund
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Yad Chaya Inc; the most unlike its peers is Upper East Side Hatzolah 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

11 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. 11 of the 61 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)
11/11
Grantees still filing
3/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Yeshiva Ketana of Manhattan: $12,200 · OtherYeshiva Ketana of ManhattanYESHIVA KETANA OF MANHATTAN: $7,160 · OtherYESHIVA KETANA OF MANHATTANCONGREGATION AHAVATH CHESED: $6,500 · OtherCONGREGATION AHAVATH CHESEDGEMILOS CHASODIM CHASDEI MOSHE: $6,300 · OtherGEMILOS CHASODIM CHASDEI MOSHETorah Community Fund Inc.: $5,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $4,000 · Other+44 more: $68,120 · Other+44 moreTORAH COMMUNITY FUND INC: $11,500 · InternationalTORAH COMM…AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD LEAH INC: $1,500 · InternationalAMERICAN F…SAMCHAINU INC: $2,500 · ReligionAMERICAN FRIENDS OF NEVEH ZION: $2,000 · ReligionKEREN ZICHRON ARYEH LEIB: $1,800 · ReligionBIKUR CHOLIM OF MANHATTAN INC: $4,000 · HealthUpper East Side Hatzolah Inc: $1,218 · HealthGEMACH ZICHRON MOSHE INC: $5,000 · Community ImprovementYAD CHAYA INC: $2,400 · Human ServicesAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER: $1,500 · Human ServicesCHAYAL EL CHAYAL INC: $1,800 · Public Benefit
Other$109,280International$13,000Religion$6,300Health$5,218Community Improvement$5,000Human Services$3,900Public Benefit$1,800

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTORAH COMMUNITY FUND INC: $11,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetGEMACH ZICHRON MOSHE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBIKUR CHOLIM OF MANHATTAN INC: $4,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetSAMCHAINU INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetYAD CHAYA INC: $2,400 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF NEVEH ZION: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetKEREN ZICHRON ARYEH LEIB: $1,800 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCHAYAL EL CHAYAL INC: $1,800 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD LEAH INC: $1,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetUpper East Side Hatzolah Inc: $1,218 over 1y, 0.2% 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 TORAH COMMUNITY FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds GEMACH ZICHRON MOSHE INC ↗
  • Who funds BIKUR CHOLIM OF MANHATTAN INC ↗
  • Who funds SAMCHAINU INC ↗
  • Who funds YAD CHAYA INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF NEVEH ZION ↗
  • Who funds KEREN ZICHRON ARYEH LEIB ↗
  • Who funds CHAYAL EL CHAYAL INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD LEAH INC ↗
  • Who funds Upper East Side Hatzolah Inc ↗

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.

The Ojc FundJewish Communal FundJoseph and Martha Mel…Traditional Fund IncKitov FoundationZichron Yechiel Meche…Jack Adjmi Family Fou…Jewish Community Foun…Morgan Stanley Global…Gs Donor Advised Phil…Vanguard Charitable E…National Philanthropi…
The Ojc FundNY26× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · Joseph and Martha Melohn Tzedaka Fund · Traditional Fund Inc · Kitov Foundation · Zichron Yechiel Mechel Foundation · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust

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 H Gross Family Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from H Gross Family Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%0%1%3%5%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
    3get no government money at all
    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 H Gross Family Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to H Gross 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 61 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on H Gross 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