Skip to content
Harold & Libby Ziff Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Harold & Libby Ziff 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.

$233k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$100k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Human Services$1.6MReligion$516kArts & Culture$151kEducation$90kInternational$48kCivil Rights$25kPhilanthropy$1k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $63k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $170k
$70,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Jewish Family and Children's Service Inc$100,000
The Center for Jewish Campus Life$70,000
Ronald C Wornick Jewish Day School$37,500
Oshman Family Jewish Community Center$25,000
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 (FY20–25, $275k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, 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%ZERO TO THREE: $150k → 14%Jewish Family and Children's Service Inc: $100k → 10%Jewish Family and Children's Service Inc: $25k → 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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.1M · 9 repeat orgs$241k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
8

Total granted

$2.1M
$241k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+16%
+22%

Still filing today

67%
63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
Arts & CultureReligionInternationalHuman ServicesPhilanthropyOther
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
    THE CENTER FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE INC
    6× · 2019–2025 · $450k · revenue +38%
  • OF
    OSHMAN FAMILY JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER
    8× · 2017–2025 · $147k · revenue +16%
  • RC
    RONALD C WORNICK JEWISH DAY SCHOOL
    3× · 2023–2025 · $90k · revenue +86%

Funded once

  • ZT
    ZERO TO THREE NATIONAL CENTER FOR INFANTS TODDLERS AND FAMILIESgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $150k · revenue +48%
  • HA
    HILLEL AT STANFORD
    one grant, 2017 · $50k
  • FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES
    one grant, 2023 · $30k · revenue -33%
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
Foundation for Conservative Judiasm of South Florida
—
3
The Steinhardt Foundation for Jewish Life Inc
Religion
4
Jewish Life Foundation
—
5
Dorot Foundation
Philanthropy
6
The Jerusalem Connection
—
7
Eastern European Jewish Heritage Foundation
Philanthropy
8
The Bnai Jacob Foundation
—
9
The Nochim & Rivka Zeldes Foundation
—
10
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary

To prepare students for the rabbinate and to issue the traditional certificate of ordination in connection therewith. the seminary is authorized to confer the degree of master of hebrew literature (m.h.l.), doctor of hebrew literature…

Education
11
Bronfman Youth Fellowships to Israel in Inc
Youth Development
12
The Jewish Foundation of Cincinnati
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Family and Children's Services; the most unlike its peers is Zero to Three National Center for Infants Toddlers and Families. 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 19 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)
13/13
Grantees still filing
9/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JEWISH FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO: $800,000 · OtherJEWISH FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCOJewish Family and Children's Services of SF: $400,000 · OtherJewish Family and Children's Services of SFOSHMAN FAMILY JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER: $146,645 · OtherOSHMAN FAMILY JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERRONALD C WORNICK JEWISH DAY SCHOOL: $90,400 · OtherRONALD C WORNICK JEWISH DAY SCHOOL+5 more: $89,245 · Other+5 moreTHE CENTER FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE INC: $450,000 · ReligionTHE CENTER FOR JEWIS…+1 more: $5,000 · ReligionZERO TO THREE NATIONAL CENTER FOR INFANTS TODDLERS AND FAMILIES: $150,000 · Human ServicesZERO TO THRE…JEWISH FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $125,000 · Human ServicesJEWISH FAMIL…Jewish Film Institute: $150,000 · Arts & Culture+1 more: $500 · Arts & CultureFRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: $30,000 · InternationalNEW ISRAEL FUND: $15,000 · InternationalCentral Fund of Israel: $2,500 · InternationalJEWISH FUNDERS NETWORK: $1,270 · Philanthropy
Other$1,526,290Religion$455,000Human Services$275,000Arts & Culture$150,500International$47,500Philanthropy$1,270

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE CENTER FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE INC: $450,000 over 6y, 6.7% of budgetJewish Film Institute: $150,000 over 4y, 3.5% of budgetZERO TO THREE NATIONAL CENTER FOR INFANTS TODDLERS AND FAMILIES: $150,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetOSHMAN FAMILY JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER: $146,645 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetJEWISH FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $125,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetRONALD C WORNICK JEWISH DAY SCHOOL: $90,400 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: $30,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL OF SAN FRANCISCO MARIN & PENINSULA: $25,045 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetNEW ISRAEL FUND: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetJ STREET EDUCATION FUND INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCentral Fund of Israel: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH FUNDERS NETWORK: $1,270 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL MUSEUM: $500 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

The Shimon Ben Joseph…Koret FoundationTaube Foundation for …Jewish Community Fede…Silicon Valley Commun…American Endowment Fo…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…Morgan Stanley Global…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
The Shimon Ben Joseph Foundation Dba Jim Joseph FoundationCA15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Shimon Ben Joseph Foundation Dba Jim Joseph Foundation · Koret Foundation · Taube Foundation for Jewish Life and Culture · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Harold & Libby Ziff Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Harold & Libby Ziff Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
    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 19 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 Harold & Libby Ziff’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