· Private foundation
Joseph Jack Sitt 1986 - Charitable Trust
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 you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k18 grants · $37k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $41k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Currier Museum Of Art | $60,000 |
| Sephardic Community Center | $26,570 |
| Total Donations Less Than 1000 | $14,795 |
| Renewal Of Life | $5,300 |
| Yeshiva of Flatbush | $4,300 |
| Lung Cancer Research Foundation | $3,600 |
| Sephardic Community Alliance | $3,600 |
| Mitzvah Man Foundation Corp | $2,000 |
| Deal Policeman's Benevolent Association | $2,000 |
| Albert Missry Foundation | $2,000 |
| WIZO | $1,800 |
| Shaarei Chesed Of Los Angeles | $1,800 |
| Chabad Of S Barth | $1,800 |
| Bobbies Place | $1,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,200 |
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 (FY17–24, $134k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 99% 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 +38% since the first grant, against +16% for the ones you funded once.
54 repeat relationships — 15 still active in FY2024, 39 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 51% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $68k 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
- TSTHE SEPHARDIC FOOD FUND INC4× · 2020–2023 · $117k · revenue +5%
- GYGESHER YEHUDA INC2× · 2018–2019 · $86k · revenue +69%
- UJUNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC4× · 2017–2023 · $66k · revenue +39%
Funded once
- CYCONGREGATIONYESHIVA YOREH DEAH INCone grant, 2021 · $38k
- IRInnocenti Research Centre UNICEFone grant, 2021 · $28k
- YJYoung Jewish Professionalsone grant, 2017 · $25k
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.
To provide religious education and services to our students in the tradition of the orthodox jewish faith
The organization provides financial assistance to victims of acts of terrorism in the state of israel.
To further jewish education in israel
Furtherance of jewish education
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Committee for Shaare Zedek Hospital in Jerusalem Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Realty Foundation of New York Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 24 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% 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.
71 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. 71 of the 171 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 THE SEPHARDIC FOOD FUND INC ↗
- Who funds GESHER YEHUDA INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC ↗
- Who funds SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds RENEWAL OF LIFE INC ↗
- Who funds THE SPECIAL CHILDREN CENTER ↗
- Who funds ALBERT MISSRY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LUPUS RESEARCH ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds BOBBIES PLACE INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF TORAH AND TEFILAH RAMAT ESHKOL INC ↗
- Who funds VENETIAN HERITAGE INC ↗
- Who funds CHAI LIFELINE INC ↗
- Who funds ENCOURAGE KIDS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds DR RICHARD BARNETT FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds KINGS HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds MITZVAH MAN FOUNDATION CORP ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF RABIN MEDICAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds SHARE OF NEW SQUARE INC DBA CHESED 247 ↗
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: Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · The Howard Hoffman & Sons Foundation Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Chehebar Family Foundation · The Ralph S Gindi Family Foundation · The Amin and Lillian Adjmi Foundation · I Chera & Sons Foundation Inc · Ralph J Harary Foundation Inc · Isaac & Marjorie Gindi Foundation Inc · The Setton Foundation · Ic Hessed Foundation · Samuel & Mollie Jemal Foundation Co Jem Realty
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 Joseph Jack Sitt 1986 - Charitable Trust 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.
- The Special Children Center — 5% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Joseph Jack Sitt 1986 - Charitable Trust?
Find your warmest path to Joseph Jack Sitt 1986 - Charitable Trust 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.