· Private foundation
Katz Bick 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.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 86% of Katz Bick Foundation’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k6 grants · $25k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $145k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $306k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Shalhevet High School | $150,000 |
| Harkham Hillel Hebrew Academy | $54,100 |
| Individual grant recipient | $51,500 |
| Trustees | $50,000 |
| President and Fellows | $35,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $25,000 |
| Jewish Campus Life Fund (Columbia Hillel) | $23,000 |
| International Beit Din | $17,200 |
| Bnei Akiva of Los Angeles | $14,400 |
| Mechon Hadar | $10,000 |
| Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance | $10,000 |
| Midwest Campers (Camp Stone) | $10,000 |
| Mikvah Society of Los Angeles | $6,000 |
| Sharsheret | $5,540 |
| United Nations Watch - USA | $5,000 |
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 (FY20–23, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% 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 +3% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
16 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $107k 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
- IBINTERNATIONAL BEIT DIN INC6× · 2020–2025 · $36k · revenue +317%
- JOJewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance Inc2× · 2023–2025 · $15k · revenue +3%
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF NISHMAT INC2× · 2021–2023 · $12k · revenue +92%
Funded once
- BDBnai David Judea Synagogueone grant, 2024 · $51k
- JOJGIVE-FRIENDS OF ASOR FUND USA INCone grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue -28%
- VVariousone grant, 2020 · $26k
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 support religious, charitable, scientific, literary and/or educational programs
Religious School
The furthurance of jewish concepts and religious beliefs.
To voluntarily assist the house of religious learning known as yeshiva neveh zion in israel
Raise funds for religious and educational institutions in the state of israel, and to provide educational and social improvement for the children of kiryat arba, israel.
Furtherance of jewish education
To prepare students for the rabbinate and to issue the traditional certificate of ordination in connection therewith. the seminary is authorized to confer the degree of master of hebrew literature (m.h.l.), doctor of hebrew literature…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Yeshivat Maharat Inc and the most unlike its peers is Yeshiva of Los Angeles Girls High School. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 28 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
20 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. 20 of the 54 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 President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds JGIVE-FRIENDS OF ASOR FUND USA INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL BEIT DIN INC ↗
- Who funds BNEI AKIVA OF LOS ANGELES ↗
- Who funds Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance Inc ↗
- Who funds Sharsheret Inc ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF NISHMAT INC ↗
- Who funds TRINITY BOSTON CONNECTS INC ↗
- Who funds KESHER FAMILIES INC ↗
- Who funds ALEXANDRIA HOUSE ↗
- Who funds COLUMBIABARNARD HILLEL INC ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ↗
- Who funds UNITED NATIONS WATCH - USA ↗
- Who funds MIDWEST CAMPERS INC ↗
- Who funds YESHIVAT MAHARAT INC ↗
- Who funds YESH TIKVA INC ↗
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: Jewish Communal Fund · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Inc · Micah Philanthropies · Kolatch Family Foundation · Aviv Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York Inc · Jewish Community Foundation of Greater Metrowest NJ · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · The Eric and Tamar Goldstein Foundation
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 Katz Bick Foundation 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Sharsheret Inc — 4% 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 Katz Bick Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Katz Bick 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.