Skip to content
Irving and Cecelia Appelbaum Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Irving and Cecelia Appelbaum 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.

$3k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$2k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Religion$104kArts & Culture$8kHuman Services$3kPhilanthropy$3kInternational$3kHealth$1kFood & Nutrition$1kEducation$500Other$0
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$46k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HILLEL INTERNATIONAL$1,800
JEWISH FEDERATION OF THE BERKSHIRES$1,000
PROJECT OPEN$200
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 (FY21–25, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%GLOBAL VILLAGE CONNECT: $1k → 11%JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF MANHATTAN: $2k → 17%PROJECT OPEN: $200 → 17%PROJECT OPEN: $200 → 17%PROJECT OPEN: $180 → 17%PROJECT OPEN: $180 → 17%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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$112k · 5 repeat orgs$10k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +62% since the first grant, against +17% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
15

Total granted

$112k
$10k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+62%
+17%

Still filing today

80%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesReligionArts & CultureHealthInternationalEducationOther
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

  • HILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE
    6× · 2020–2025 · $99k · revenue +62%
  • SD
    SAN DIEGO CENTER FOR JEWISH CULTURE
    2× · 2023–2024 · $6k · revenue +36%
  • PO
    PROJECT OPEN INC
    4× · 2021–2025 · $760 · revenue +89%

Funded once

  • EH
    EAST HAMPTON ARTISTS AND WRITERS CHARITY SOFTBALL GAME
    one grant, 2023 · $2k
  • SP
    SOUTH PHILADELPHIA SHTIEBEL
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
  • TJ
    THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER IN MANHATTAN INC
    one grant, 2023 · $2k · revenue +17%
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
The Jerusalem Connection
—
2
Jewish Community Centers of Greater Boston

To advance the aspirations of families and individuals to enrich their lives, bodies and spirits, by providing the best in contemporary programs and experiences, informed by jewish values for today's jews and the people in their lives.

Human Services
3
The Bnai Jacob Foundation
—
4
Connect Israel

Connect israel is a life-long program that aims to strengthen the gap between american jews and israelis through business, creative teamwork, and developing personal relationships.

International
5
Joint Israel

To help build a more just society by creating model programs for disadvantaged populations. The activities focus primarily on helping Israel overcome the challenges facing five groups (cont. on sched O):

International
6
Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago

Juf provides critical resources that bring food, refuge, health care, education and emergency assistance to over 500,000 chicagoans of all faiths and millions of jews in israel and around the world, funding a network of 100+ agencies,…

Philanthropy
7
National Council of Jewish Women Inc Jersey Hills Section
—
8
University of Judaism Foundation
—
9
Bar Ilan University in Israel Inc

Biu produces students who excel in the sciences, humanities, law, engineering, business & the arts.

—
10
Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia

The jewish federation of greater philadelphia mobilizes financial and volunteer resources to create a bright future for jewish people everywhere. the jewish federation cares for those in need, combats antisemitism and global crises, and…

Philanthropy
11
Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemeth Leisrael) Inc

Jewish national fund gives all generations of jews a unique voice in building a prosperous future for the land of israel and its people.

International
12
National Center for Jewish Filminc

The national center for jewish film is a unique, independent nonprofit motion picture archive, distributor, resource center and exhibitor. ncjf's ongoing mission is the collection, preservation and exhibition of films with artistic and…

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Federation of the Berkshires; the most unlike its peers is Limb Kind 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

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 21 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)
11/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE: $99,100 · ReligionHILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFESTEPHEN WISE FREE SYNAGOGUE: $2,700 · OtherEAST HAMPTON ARTISTS AND WRITERS CHARITY SOFTBALL GAME: $1,500 · OtherSOUTH PHILADELPHIA SHTIEBEL: $1,500 · OtherSOUTH COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY: $1,000 · OtherJEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF AMERICA: $500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $500 · OtherBERKSHIRES BOUNTY INC: $360 · Other+6 more: $1,360 · OtherSAN DIEGO CENTER FOR JEWISH CULTURE: $6,000 · Arts & CultureTHE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER IN MANHATTAN INC: $1,500 · Human ServicesGLOBAL VILLAGE CONNECT: $1,000 · Human ServicesPROJECT OPEN INC: $760 · Human ServicesJEWISH FEDERATION OF THE BERKSHIRES: $3,072 · PhilanthropyThe American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee Inc: $3,000 · InternationalLimb Kind Foundation: $1,000 · Health
Religion$99,100Other$9,420Arts & Culture$6,000Human Services$3,260Philanthropy$3,072International$3,000Health$1,000

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 budgetHILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE: $99,100 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetSAN DIEGO CENTER FOR JEWISH CULTURE: $6,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF THE BERKSHIRES: $3,072 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetThe American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee Inc: $3,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER IN MANHATTAN INC: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGLOBAL VILLAGE CONNECT: $1,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetLimb Kind Foundation: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPROJECT OPEN INC: $760 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetBERKSHIRES BOUNTY INC: $360 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSEFARIA INC: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL BRAIN TUMOR SOCIETY INC: $250 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.

Jewish Communal FundJewish Community Fede…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Jewish Communal FundNY13.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · 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 Irving and Cecelia Appelbaum Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Irving and Cecelia Appelbaum Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%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
    2get 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 · 0–5%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Irving and Cecelia Appelbaum Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Irving and Cecelia Appelbaum Foundation 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.

    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 21 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 Irving and Cecelia Appelbaum’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