Skip to content
Hirsch Fred and Lucille Fdn Tuw at a glance

· Private foundation

Hirsch Fred and Lucille Fdn Tuw

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.

$117k
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$34k
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.

Recreation & Sports$322kHealth$277kHuman Services$252kEducation$61kYouth Development$61kCommunity Improvement$61k
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k11 grants · $72k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $45k
$6,720
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ELKS OF LOS ANGELES FOUNDATION$33,600
SPECIAL CHILDRENS LEAGUE$11,220
MASONIC HOMES OF CALIFORNIA$7,840
BRAILLE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC$7,840
FOUNDATION FOR THE JUNIOR BLIND$6,720
THE SALVATION ARMY A CALIFORNIA CORP$6,720
CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER$6,720
CITY OF HOPE$6,720
LOS ANGELES JEWISH HOME FOR THE$6,720
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HOLLYWOOD$6,720
ST ANNES FOUNDATION$6,720
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY$6,720
EASTERN STAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA$2,240
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, $141k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 50% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%MASONIC HOMES OF CALIFORNIA: $13k → 10%MASONIC HOMES OF CALIFORNIA: $9k → 10%MASONIC HOMES OF CALIFORNIA: $9k → 10%MASONIC HOMES OF CALIFORNIA: $8k → 10%MASONIC HOMES OF CALIFORNIA: $8k → 10%MASONIC HOMES OF CALIFORNIA: $8k → 10%MASONIC HOMES OF CALIFORNIA: $8k → 10%MASONIC HOMES OF CALIFORNIA: $7k → 10%BRAILLE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC: $13k → 14%BRAILLE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC: $9k → 14%BRAILLE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC: $9k → 14%BRAILLE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC: $8k → 14%BRAILLE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC: $8k → 14%BRAILLE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC: $8k → 14%BRAILLE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC: $8k → 14%BRAILLE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC: $7k → 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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.0M · 14 repeat orgs$13k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 13 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
2

Total granted

$1.0M
$13k

Still filing today

64%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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 ServicesEducationYouth DevelopmentCommunity 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

  • BI
    BRAILLE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $71k · revenue +146%
  • PU
    PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY
    8× · 2018–2025 · $61k · revenue +45%
  • CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER
    8× · 2018–2025 · $61k · revenue +52%

Funded once

  • TS
    THE SALVATION ARMY
    one grant, 2023 · $7k
  • JH
    JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGING
    one grant, 2018 · $6k
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
Pasadena Hospital Association Ltd

Huntington Health stands for community. We stand for compassion. But more than anything, Huntington stands for health. Providing world-class health care is our specialty, and it's what we've been doing for the San Gabriel Valley since…

Health
2
Jha Geriatric Services Inc

Excellence in senior care reflective of jewish values.

Health
3
Berkeley Hall School Foundation

Our mission is to "empower children to fulfill their unlimited, god-given potential as fearless scholars and conscientious citizens."

Education
4
California Institute for BioMedical Research

Our mission is to build a unique institute that bridges basic research and drug discovery, and that attracts the best and brightest scientists, physicians and students to work together synergistically to find cures for neglected human…

—
5
Children's Hospital Los Angeles

Promotion and advancement of children's health through patient care, research, and education.

Health
6
Sage Hill School

We inspire in our students a love of knowledge and the ability to use that knowledge creatively, compassionately and courageously throughout their lives.sage hill school's commitment to academic excellence and our outstanding college…

Education
7
Barlow Respiratory Hospital

A not-for-profit, long-term acute care specialty healthcare organization is to improve the quality of life for patients with respiratory and other diseases that may require prolonged acute hospitalization of specialized treatment.

Health
8
The International School of San Francisco

Guided by the principles of academic rigor and diversity, the international school of san francisco offers programs of study in french and english to prepare its graduates for a world in which the ability to think critically and to…

Education
9
Usc Arcadia Hospital

To provide high-quality healing services while caring for the patient's emotional and spiritual needs and enabling them to achieve health for life.

Health
10
Ucla Foundation

The ucla foundation is the giving, receiving, and investing arm of the ucla campus. the foundation enables private donors to help build, sustain and advance one of the world's finest academic and research institutions. private philanthropy…

Education
11
Association of California School Administrators

The association serves its members by creating resources that enable california school administrators to develop and apply creative leadership and management skills and in turn, improve the educational process for all students.

—
12
Cedars-Sinai Health System

To support certain specified nonprofit health care organizations organized for the purpose of establishing, maintaining, sponsoring and promoting activities relating to the improvement of human health and (see schedule o for…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Masonic Homes of California; the most unlike its peers is Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. 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

9 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. 9 of the 16 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ELKS OF LOS ANGELES FOUNDATION: $321,900 · OtherELKS OF LOS ANGELES FOUNDATIONFOUNDATION FOR THE JUNIOR BLIND: $60,540 · OtherFOUNDATION FOR THE JUNIOR BLINDSt Anne's Foundation: $60,540 · OtherSt Anne's FoundationCITY OF HOPE: $60,540 · OtherCITY OF HOPETHE SALVATION ARMY: $39,000 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMY+3 more: $27,540 · OtherTHE SPECIAL CHILDREN'S LEAGUE INC: $65,040 · HealthTHE SPECIAL CHI…CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $60,540 · HealthCEDARS-SINAI ME…EASTERN STAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA: $20,180 · HealthEASTERN STAR HO…BRAILLE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC: $70,630 · Human ServicesBRAILLE INSTITU…MASONIC HOMES OF CALIFORNIA: $70,630 · Human ServicesMASONIC HOMES O…PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: $60,540 · EducationBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HOLLYWOOD INC: $60,540 · Youth DevelopmentLOS ANGELES JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGING: $54,540 · Community Improvement
Other$570,060Health$145,760Human Services$141,260Education$60,540Youth Development$60,540Community Improvement$54,540

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 budgetBRAILLE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC: $70,630 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetMASONIC HOMES OF CALIFORNIA: $70,630 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetTHE SPECIAL CHILDREN'S LEAGUE INC: $65,040 over 8y, 6.4% of budgetPEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: $60,540 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $60,540 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetSt Anne's Foundation: $60,540 over 8y, 3.3% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HOLLYWOOD INC: $60,540 over 8y, 0.7% of budgetLOS ANGELES JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGING: $54,540 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetEASTERN STAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA: $20,180 over 8y, 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 BRAILLE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC ↗
  • Who funds MASONIC HOMES OF CALIFORNIA ↗
  • Who funds THE SPECIAL CHILDREN'S LEAGUE INC ↗
  • Who funds PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ↗
  • Who funds St Anne's Foundation ↗
  • Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HOLLYWOOD INC ↗
  • Who funds LOS ANGELES JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGING ↗
  • Who funds EASTERN STAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA ↗

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.

California Community …Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
California Community FoundationCA12.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: California Community Foundation · 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 Hirsch Fred and Lucille Fdn Tuw funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Hirsch Fred and Lucille Fdn Tuw. 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%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
    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.

    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 16 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 Hirsch Fred and Lucille Fdn Tuw’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