Skip to content
Hannah & Frank Grossman Charitable Trust II at a glance

· Private foundation

Hannah & Frank Grossman Charitable Trust II

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.

$73k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Health$240kHuman Services$182kAnimals$74kInternational$26kYouth Development$10kArts & Culture$5k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $63k
$12,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$646k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WORKING ON WELLNESS FOUNDATION$15,000
HAVE DREAMS$12,500
PICKLES GROUP$12,500
SHALVA$12,500
FRIENDS OF YAD SARAH$10,000
SOJOURN THERAPUTIC RIDING CENTER$5,000
NORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER$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 (FY18–25, $159k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%NORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER: $20k → 14%SHALVA: $15k → 14%SHALVA: $15k → 14%SHALVA: $15k → 14%SHALVA: $13k → 14%SHALVA: $12k → 14%NORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER: $12k → 14%SHALVA: $10k → 14%NORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER: $10k → 14%NORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER: $8k → 14%NORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER: $5k → 14%NORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER: $5k → 14%SHALVA: $5k → 14%NORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER: $5k → 14%NORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER: $5k → 14%SHALVA: $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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$505k · 14 repeat orgs$32k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +40% since the first grant, against -8% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
3

Total granted

$505k
$27k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+40%
-8%

Still filing today

71%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentInternationalHousing & ShelterEmploymentOther
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

  • SI
    SHALVA INC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $90k · revenue +62%
  • NS
    NORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER
    8× · 2018–2025 · $70k · revenue +40%
  • HD
    HAVE DREAMS
    7× · 2019–2025 · $60k · revenue +52%

Funded once

  • LA
    LESTER AND ROSALIE ANIXTER CENTER
    one grant, 2018 · $12k · revenue +16%
  • CY
    Chicago Youth Centers
    one grant, 2024 · $10k · revenue -8%
  • BIRCH CREEK MUSIC PERFORMANCE CENTER INC
    one grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue -26%
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
Jewish Family and Children's Service of Minneapolis

Jewish family and children's service of minneapolis provides essential services to people of all ages and backgrounds to sustain healthy relationships, ease suffering and offer support in times of need.

Human Services
2
Jewish Child and Family Services

JCFS Chicago services and programs support wellbeing for children, teens, adults and families regardless of race, culture, religion, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or…

Human Services
3
Jewish Family and Children's Service Inc

Strengthening the community by providing behavioral health, healthcare and social services to all ages, faiths and backgrounds.

Human Services
4
Alzheimer's Family Services Center

To improve the quality of life for families challenged by alzheimer's disease or another dementia, through services tailored to meet individual needs.

—
5
Jewish Family Service

Jewish Family Service is a nonprofit social service organization that supports people of all faiths as they navigate through lifes's challenges - illness, aging , finanical uncertainty, mental health concerns, family problems, or personal…

—
6
Chelsea Jewish Lifecare Inc

The organization's mission is to manage a continuum of senior care business lines that consistently provide high-quality compassionate care while focusing on the development of innovative programs and services that enable individuals to…

Health
7
Jewish Family & Childrens Service of Greater Monmouth County

To do everything possible to create health and happiness in our community by providing the best social services, delivered by exceptional people.

Human Services
8
Jewish Family Service of Colorado Inc

Improving the lives of individuals and families in need throughout colorado by taking an integrated approach to delivering comprehensive support services.

Human Services
9
Jewish Senior Life

To enhance the quality of life, health, and well-being of jewish older adults, their families, and others in our community, consistent with the values and traditions of our jewish heritage.

Religion
10
Chelsea Jewish Nursing Home Inc

The organization's mission is to provide individuals throughout the greater boston area with the highest level of skilled nursing, rehabilitation and assisted living services without regard to ability to pay. the goal is to ensure both…

Health
11
Jgs Administrative Services Inc

To provide administrative support to jgs lifecare corporation.

Health
12
Daughters of Sarah Nursing Center Inc

The mission of the daughters of sarah nursing center, inc. is to enhance the quality of life, assure the safety and dignity, and foster the independence of those we serve through residential, personal care, health and other quality…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is North Shore Senior Center; the most unlike its peers is Cystic Fibrosis 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 18 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
8/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BIG BIKES HELPING LITTLE TYKES: $74,300 · OtherBIG BIKES HELPING LITTLE TYKESPEGASUS THERAPEUTIC RIDING: $61,200 · OtherPEGASUS THERAPEUTIC RIDINGWORKING ON WELLNESS FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 · OtherWORKING ON WELLNESS FOUNDATION INCSOUTH COOK MS HELP GROUP: $10,000 · OtherLESTER AND ROSALIE ANIXTER CENTER: $12,000 · OtherLESTER AND ROSALIE ANIXTER CENTER+2 more: $10,000 · OtherSHALVA INC: $89,500 · Human ServicesSHALVA INCNORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER: $69,500 · Human ServicesNORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTERHAVE DREAMS: $60,000 · EmploymentHAVE DREAMSPickles Group Inc: $35,000 · Youth DevelopmentPickles G…Chicago Youth Centers: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentChicago Y…NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY: $17,500 · HealthFRIENDS OF YAD SARAH INC: $16,500 · HealthCYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION: $7,500 · HealthAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM: $16,000 · InternationalUKRAINIAN CHILDREN INC: $10,000 · InternationalJust Cause Create Joy: $13,000 · Philanthropy
Other$192,500Human Services$159,000Employment$60,000Youth Development$45,000Health$41,500International$26,000Philanthropy$13,000

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 budgetSHALVA INC: $89,500 over 8y, 1.0% of budgetNORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER: $69,500 over 8y, 0.3% of budgetHAVE DREAMS: $60,000 over 7y, 0.6% of budgetPickles Group Inc: $35,000 over 4y, 1.4% of budgetNATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY: $17,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF YAD SARAH INC: $16,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM: $16,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetJust Cause Create Joy: $13,000 over 2y, 5.5% of budgetLESTER AND ROSALIE ANIXTER CENTER: $12,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUKRAINIAN CHILDREN INC: $10,000 over 2y, 2.7% of budgetChicago Youth Centers: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION: $7,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBIRCH CREEK MUSIC PERFORMANCE CENTER INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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 SHALVA INC ↗
  • Who funds NORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER ↗
  • Who funds HAVE DREAMS ↗
  • Who funds Pickles Group Inc ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF YAD SARAH INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM ↗
  • Who funds Just Cause Create Joy ↗
  • Who funds LESTER AND ROSALIE ANIXTER CENTER ↗
  • Who funds UKRAINIAN CHILDREN INC ↗
  • Who funds Chicago Youth Centers ↗
  • Who funds CYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds BIRCH CREEK MUSIC PERFORMANCE CENTER 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 Chicago Community…George M Eisenberg Fo…AbbVie FoundationThe Bank of America C…Network for GoodAmerican Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Chicago Community TrustIL13.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Chicago Community Trust · George M Eisenberg Foundation for Charities · AbbVie Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Network for Good · 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 Hannah & Frank Grossman Charitable Trust II funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Hannah & Frank Grossman Charitable Trust II. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 18 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 Hannah & Frank Grossman Charitable Trust II’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