· Private foundation
Icu 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.
What it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2022.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $50,000 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
Its human-services grants (FY17–17, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, 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.
How this is measured
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
8 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2022, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2022, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- YSYESHIVA SHEARITH HAPLETAH2× · 2017–2018 · $15k
- MSMESIVTA SANZ OF HUDSON COUNTY2× · 2017–2018 · $8k
- IGIndividual grant recipient2× · 2017–2018 · $5k
Funded once
- MLMESAMCHEI LEVone grant, 2017 · $200k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2017 · $21k
- BYBOBOVER YESHIVAone grant, 2017 · $20k
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.
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.
Support of religious schools in Israel
How this is measured
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 63 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.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
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.
Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Rostrust Foundation · Bzl Foundation · Jewish Communal Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Emes Foundation Inc · The Margareten Family Foundation · Yeled V'Yalda Early Childhood Center Inc · Fund for Life Foundation Inc · Zichron Yechiel Mechel Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization Icu Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Icu Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Icu Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Icu 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.
Play a game based on Icu’s filings →