Skip to content

· Private foundation

Judith and Bradley Schram Family 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.

$31k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$20k
Largest
01What it funds
0185% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Religion$145kPhilanthropy$139kHealth$38kCivil Rights$35kCommunity Improvement$25kPublic Benefit$15kFood & Nutrition$13kHousing & Shelter$7kOther$0
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k7 grants · $11k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $20k
$2,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$935k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HADASSAH$20,000
TEMPLE ISRAEL$3,650
CROHNS & COLITIS FUND$2,500
SOS LIGHTHOUSE$2,000
CRAIG HOSPITAL FOUNDATION$1,500
Individual grant recipient$1,000
DETROIT DANCE COLLECTIVE$500
LEUKEMIA FOUNDATION$250
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 (FY19–24, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, 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%HOSPICE OF MICHIGAN: $2k → 11%HOSPICE OF MICHIGAN: $1k → 11%HOSPICE OF MICHIGAN: $1k → 11%HOSPICE OF MICHIGAN: $1k → 11%HOSPICE OF MICHIGAN: $1k → 11%HOSPICE OF MICHIGAN: $1k → 11%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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$355k · 15 repeat orgs$55k to everyone else

15 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
7

Total granted

$355k
$55k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+35%
+50%

Still filing today

33%
57%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $250 went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthCivil RightsHuman ServicesHousing & ShelterCommunity ImprovementEmploymentOther
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

  • AL
    ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE
    3× · 2019–2021 · $35k · revenue +47%
  • YE
    YAD EZRA
    5× · 2019–2023 · $13k · revenue +9%
  • CH
    Craig Hospital Foundation
    7× · 2019–2025 · $10k · revenue +156%

Funded once

  • FV
    FIND VENTURES CO
    one grant, 2021 · $25k · revenue -100%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $25k
  • HF
    HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEMgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $2k · revenue +50%
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 Jewish Fund

The jewish fund is organized and operates exclusively for charitable, educational, and religious purposes. the fund's primary activities are: supporting a jewish health care mission in the greater detroit area and michigan; promotion of…

Philanthropy
2
United Jewish Foundation

The united jewish foundation of detroit owns, manages and invests jewish communal assets, including general and endowment funds, agency endowments, supporting foundations and real property. the foundation is committed to ensuring that…

Philanthropy
3
The Greater Detroit Health Transition Company

Gdahc mission: together with our partners, we empower and improve the health and economic vitality of individuals, organizations and communities by catalyzing the power of collaboration. gdahc vision: healthy people. healthy community.…

—
4
Henry Ford Health Macomb Oakland Hospital

As one of the nation's leading integrated health systems, it is the mission of henry ford health system, a related entity of the filing organization, to improve people's lives through the excellence of the science and art of health care…

Health
5
Henry Ford Health Genesys Hospital

As one of the nation's leading integrated health systems, it is the mission of henry ford health system, a related entity of the filing organization, to improve people's lives through the excellence of the science and art of health care…

Health
6
Jfa Non-Profit Housing Corporation

We nurture a sense of community and enrich the lives of older adults, while embracing jewish values and celebrating life.

Housing & Shelter
7
About Face Detroit
—
8
Detroit Historical Society

The Detroit Historical Society tells Detroit's stories and why they matter through its exhibits, programs, outreach, and the preservation and dissemination of its artifacts and collections.

Arts & Culture
9
Detroit Jews for Justice

Djj advances racial and economic justice by developing metro detroit jews as community organizers who fight for transformative policy change in deep partnership with neighbors

Civil Rights
10
Jsl Foundation

We nurture a sense of community and enrich the lives of older adults, while embracing jewish values and celebrating life.

Human Services
11
Endeavor Detroit

Endeavor Detroit is leading the high-impact entrepreneurship movement in Michigan and the wider Great Lakes region, catalyzing long-term economic growth by selecting, mentoring, and supporting the best high-impact entrepreneurs in the…

Community Improvement
12
Detroit Food Policy Council

The organization was founded by a group of concerned citizens, working in cooperation with the detroit city council, to shape food policy and to work for a more localized, more just, and environmentally friendly food system. the…

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Federation of Detroit; the most unlike its peers is Detroit Dance Collective. 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

10 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. 10 of the 24 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
9/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HADASSAH: $135,000 · OtherHADASSAHJEWISH FEDERATION: $45,500 · OtherJEWISH FEDERATIONDETROIT2NEPAL: $33,000 · OtherDETROIT2NEPALIndividual grant recipient: $25,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientADL: $22,000 · OtherADLIndividual grant recipient: $15,400 · OtherCROHNS & COLITIS FUND: $14,000 · OtherYAD EZRA: $13,400 · Other+9 more: $27,450 · Other+9 moreJEWISH FEDERATION OF DETROIT: $75,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FEDERATION…ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $35,000 · Civil RightsFIND VENTURES CO: $25,000 · Community ImprovementCraig Hospital Foundation: $9,500 · HealthHENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM: $1,500 · HealthHospice of Michigan Inc: $7,000 · Human ServicesDETROIT DANCE COLLECTIVE: $1,450 · Arts & Culture
Other$330,750Philanthropy$75,000Civil Rights$35,000Community Improvement$25,000Health$11,000Human Services$7,000Arts & Culture$1,450

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 budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF DETROIT: $75,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $35,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFIND VENTURES CO: $25,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetYAD EZRA: $13,400 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetCraig Hospital Foundation: $9,500 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetHospice of Michigan Inc: $7,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetHENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDETROIT DANCE COLLECTIVE: $1,450 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetSOUTH OAKLAND SHELTER: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGESHER HUMAN SERVICES: $500 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 JEWISH FEDERATION OF DETROIT ↗
  • Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
  • Who funds FIND VENTURES CO ↗
  • Who funds YAD EZRA ↗
  • Who funds Craig Hospital Foundation ↗
  • Who funds Hospice of Michigan Inc ↗
  • Who funds HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM ↗
  • Who funds DETROIT DANCE COLLECTIVE ↗
  • Who funds SOUTH OAKLAND SHELTER ↗
  • Who funds GESHER HUMAN SERVICES ↗

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.

Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO6.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Judith and Bradley Schram Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Judith and Bradley Schram Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 24 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 Judith and Bradley Schram Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph