Skip to content

· Private foundation

Irving and Edythe Grossman Foundation

Its FY2021 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$53k
Granted FY2020
25
Grants FY2020
1
States reached
$25k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

94% of Irving and Edythe Grossman Foundation’s FY2021 grant dollars went to Scranton Area Foundation Inc, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2021 names 12 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2020, the last year Irving and Edythe Grossman Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 12 organizations, $53k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

12
’17
13
’18
13
’19
12
’20
12
’21

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

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 2021.

Philanthropy$1.1MReligion$138kHuman Services$41kHealth$31kEducation$25kFood & Nutrition$10kPublic Safety & Disaster$8kEnvironment$6kOther$0
02FY2020 · 25 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2020

  • Under $10k24 grants · $28k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
$1,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNITED JEWISH APPEAL$25,000
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY$5,000
VOLUNTARY ACTION CENTER NEPA$1,000
IHM FRIENDS OF THE POOR$1,000
ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI KITCHEN$1,000
UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY OF NE PA$1,000
LACKAWANNA PRO BONO INC$1,000
ALLIED SERVICES$1,000
WOMENS RESOURCE CENTER$1,000
MEALS ON WHEELS$1,000
FRIENDSHIP HOUSE$1,000
UNITED NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS$1,000
UNITED WAY OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY$1,000
ST JOSEPHS CENTER$1,000
LACKAWANNA RIVER CONSERVATION ASSOC$1,000
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 (FY17–21, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%FRIENDSHIP HOUSE: $1k → 13%FRIENDSHIP HOUSE: $1k → 13%FRIENDSHIP HOUSE: $1k → 13%FRIENDSHIP HOUSE: $1k → 13%FRIENDSHIP HOUSE: $1k → 13%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$284k · 27 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

27 repeat relationships: 25 still active in FY2020, 2 since wound down. Read against FY2020, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

27
0

Total granted

$284k
$0

Still filing today

41%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21
Human ServicesEnvironmentCrime & LegalHealthHousing & ShelterReligionOther
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

  • SJ
    ST JOSEPHS CENTER
    5× · 2017–2021 · $9k · revenue +59%
  • LR
    LACKAWANNA RIVER CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC
    5× · 2017–2021 · $6k · revenue +54%
  • SF
    ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI KITCHEN
    5× · 2017–2021 · $5k · revenue +59%

Funded once

    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
    St Joseph Care Center

    To help residents live to their fullest potential, recognizing the changing needs of each person.

    Health
    2
    Jewish Home of Greater Harrisburg

    The jewish home of greater harrisburg provides a continuum of primarily senior living services to the central pennsylvania community. our mission, based on jewish values, is to enhance the quality of life of those we serve and their…

    Health
    3
    Jewish Family Service of the Lehigh Valley

    Jewish family service of the lehigh valley, guided by jewish values, helps individuals and families to live healthier, more stable lives by providing social services, professional counseling, education, and community programs. our vision…

    Human Services
    4
    Hebrew Health Care Inc

    The mission of hebrew health care is to provide highly personalized quality programs and services to the seniors of our community. we assure dignified, informed, quality care to all regardless of source of payment for services. (see…

    Health
    5
    Scranton-Lackawanna Resources Development Corporation

    To provide affordable housing to people of lackawanna county

    Human Services
    6
    Visiting Nurse Association and Home Health Maintenance Organization

    Vna-hhmo, inc. provides a continuum of care with comfort and compassion for all residents of lackawanna county, pa and surrounding areas.

    —
    7
    The Learning Community of Pennsylvania

    To provide companion services to individuals with special needs.

    Human Services
    8
    Saint Joseph Villa

    The mission of saint joseph villa is rooted in the mission of the sisters of st. joseph who founded and sponsor the villa. the sisters' mission of uniting people with god and with one another is the primary focus of the staff at the villa.…

    —
    9
    Franciscan Vns Home Care Inc

    To provide medical related services to homebound patients in marion county, indiana and surrounding counties through a staff of skilled nurses, home health aides, therapists and contracted professionals.

    Health
    10
    Jewish Home of Central New York Senior Apartments Inc

    Jewish home of central new york senior apartment's mission is to assure maximum independence and dignity offering a broad range of the highest quality of health, residential and community services. jewish home of central new york senior…

    Housing & Shelter
    11
    Bridgewater Home Inc

    Assisted Living and Nursing Care

    Human Services
    12
    Jewish Home of Central New York Inc

    Jewish home's mission is to assure maximum independence and dignity offering a broad range of the highest quality of health, residential and community services. menorah park is committed to maintaining jewish values and traditions.

    —
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Way of Lackawanna Wayne and Pike Counties; the most unlike its peers is Jewish Heritage Connection. 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 29 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)
    5
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    13/13
    Grantees still filing
    13/13
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    SCRANTON AREA FOUNDATION INC: $1,080,442 · PhilanthropySCRANTON AREA FOUNDATION INC+1 more: $1,000 · PhilanthropyUNITED JEWISH APPEAL: $128,000 · OtherUNITED JEWISH APPEALPENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: $25,000 · OtherPENNSYLVANIA STATE U…+18 more: $96,000 · Other+18 moreST JOSEPHS CENTER: $9,000 · Human ServicesFRIENDSHIP HOUSE: $5,000 · Human ServicesLACKAWANNA RIVER CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $6,000 · EnvironmentLACKAWANNA PRO BONO INC: $5,000 · Crime & LegalJEWISH HOME OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA ELAN SKILLED NURSING AND REHAB: $5,000 · HealthELAN GARDENS INC ELAN SENIOR LIVING A JEWISH SENIOR LIFE: $3,000 · Housing & ShelterJEWISH HERITAGE CONNECTION: $2,000 · Religion
    Philanthropy$1,081,442Other$249,000Human Services$14,000Environment$6,000Crime & Legal$5,000Health$5,000Housing & Shelter$3,000Religion$2,000

    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 budgetSCRANTON AREA FOUNDATION INC: $1,080,442 over 1y, 8.7% of budgetST JOSEPHS CENTER: $9,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetLACKAWANNA RIVER CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $6,000 over 5y, 1.3% of budgetST FRANCIS OF ASSISI KITCHEN: $5,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetLACKAWANNA PRO BONO INC: $5,000 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetUNITED WAY OF LACKAWANNA WAYNE AND PIKE COUNTIES: $5,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH HOME OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA ELAN SKILLED NURSING AND REHAB: $5,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED CEREBRAL PALSY OF NEPA: $5,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetWRC INC: $5,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDSHIP HOUSE: $5,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetELAN GARDENS INC ELAN SENIOR LIVING A JEWISH SENIOR LIFE: $3,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH HERITAGE CONNECTION: $2,000 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetTHE JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC: $1,000 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.

    • Who funds SCRANTON AREA FOUNDATION INC ↗
    • Who funds ST JOSEPHS CENTER ↗
    • Who funds LACKAWANNA RIVER CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC ↗
    • Who funds ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI KITCHEN ↗
    • Who funds LACKAWANNA PRO BONO INC ↗
    • Who funds UNITED WAY OF LACKAWANNA WAYNE AND PIKE COUNTIES ↗
    • Who funds JEWISH HOME OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA ELAN SKILLED NURSING AND REHAB ↗
    • Who funds UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY OF NEPA ↗
    • Who funds WRC INC ↗
    • Who funds FRIENDSHIP HOUSE ↗
    • Who funds ELAN GARDENS INC ELAN SENIOR LIVING A JEWISH SENIOR LIFE ↗
    • Who funds JEWISH HERITAGE CONNECTION ↗
    • Who funds THE JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC ↗

    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.

    Rosenberg Charitable FoundationPA24.2× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: Rosenberg Charitable Foundation · Walter L Schautz Foundation · The Hawk Family Foundation · Scranton Area Foundation Inc · Eureka Foundation · Robert H Spitz Foundation · Moses Taylor Foundation Inc · The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation Inc · Oppenheim Foundation · Fidelity D & D Charitable Foundation · The Ross Family Foundation · The Honesdale National Bank 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 Edythe Grossman Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Irving and Edythe Grossman 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%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      0get no government money at all
      6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
      0rely on government for over half their income
      ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
      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 29 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

      Source object · view filing

      Play a game based on Irving and Edythe Grossman’s filings →

      More from the funding graph