· Private foundation
Hortley G Leblang Charitable 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CHESED 247 - BIKUR CHOLIM OF ROCKLA | $6,500 |
| EFRAT EMERGENCY MEDICAL CENTER | $3,000 |
| YESHIVA HAR TORAH | $2,706 |
| NATIONAL COUNCIL JEWISH WOMEN | $2,000 |
| JEWISH NATIONAL FUND | $1,500 |
| MAZON | $1,500 |
| FOOD BANK OF THE HUDSON VALLEY | $1,500 |
| MEALS ON WHEELS | $1,500 |
| KEHILLAS BAIS YEHUDAH | $1,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,500 |
| BIKE 4 CHAI | $1,250 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,200 |
| HATZOLAH EMS OF ROCKLAND | $1,000 |
| HEBREW FREE BURIAL ASSOCIATION | $1,000 |
| PARKINSON'S FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $23k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 97% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +35% since the first grant, against +5% for the ones you funded once.
127 repeat relationships — 89 still active in FY2025, 38 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN INCORPORATED9× · 2017–2025 · $25k · revenue +45%- YHYESHIVA HAR TORAH9× · 2017–2025 · $21k · revenue +90%
- CFCentral Fund of Israel6× · 2019–2024 · $12k · revenue +145%
Funded once
- RCROCKLAND CHESED NETWORK TOMCHE SHABone grant, 2024 · $5k
- JOJGIVE-FRIENDS OF ASOR FUND USA INCone grant, 2024 · $2k · revenue 0%
- HAHEBREW ACADEMY OF NASSAU COUNTYone grant, 2018 · $1k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The jewish agency binds jews across ideologies and civilizations together in a worldwide jewish family with israel at its center. it provides the global framework for aliyah, ensures global jewish safety, strengthens jewish identity and…
To promote, benefit, and support jewish educational activities in israel
To promote, benefit, and support Jewish religious, charitable & educational activities in Israel and the USA.
To promote and support jewish religious charitable and educational activities in israel & usa.
To promote the furtherance of jewish religious and rabbinic education on a college and graduate level in israel and to increase the dissemination of scholarly research works in the fields of torah, talmud and halacha.
Jewish food society works to preserve and celebrate jewish culinary heritage from around the world in order to increase awareness and deepen connections to jewish life. jfs is committed to showcasing the diversity of the jewish experience,…
To support cancer research in israel, for the benefit of israel and all mankind.
To promote and enhance jewish religious observance in canada
To further jewish education in israel
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Emunah of America Inc and the most unlike its peers is Partners in Giving Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 39 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 21% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
77 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 77 of the 163 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA HAR TORAH ↗
- Who funds JEWISH NATIONAL FUND (KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL) INC ↗
- Who funds Central Fund of Israel ↗
- Who funds Cancer Care Inc ↗
- Who funds CHEBRA AGUDAS ACHIM CHESED SHEL EMETH HEBREW FREE BURIAL ASSOCIATIONINC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN PARKINSON DISEASE ASSOC ↗
- Who funds American Heart Association Inc ↗
- Who funds MAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger ↗
- Who funds REGIONAL FOOD BANK OF NORTHEASTERN NEW YORK INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ALYN HOSPITALINC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds MISASKIM CORP ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA OF NORTH JERSEY ↗
- Who funds UNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · The Ojc Fund · Mutual of America Foundation · Gertrude and Morris Bienenfeld Charitable Foundation · Cross River Community Foundation · United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York Inc · Fjc · Granit Foundation · Ruth R Greenberg Family Foundation · Cd Foundation · The Arthur & Joyce Fein Family Foundation · Dinim Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Hortley G Leblang Charitable Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Sharsheret Inc — 4% of income from government
- Chai 4EVER Inc — 2% of income from government
- The Frisch School — 0% of income from government
- Oorah Inc — 0% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.