· Private foundation
Kitov 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.
Read this first · the figures below need context
52% of Kitov Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Jewish Communal Fund, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 76 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2024, the last year Kitov Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 75 organizations, $387k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 189 grants below total $202,473 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $386,660 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $184,187 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k179 grants · $78k
- $10k–50k10 grants · $124k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Yeshiva Of Spring Valley | $18,000 |
| Yeshiva Eitz Chaim Inc | $18,000 |
| American Friends of Yeshivas Eitz Chaim Kletzk Inc | $18,000 |
| Bais Yaakov Elementary of Rockland County | $10,000 |
| Congregation Torah U Teffilah Inc | $10,000 |
| Mesvita | $10,000 |
| The Jacob Perlman Memorial Foundation | $10,000 |
| Young Israel of Riverdale | $10,000 |
| Congregation Pe Er Bais Yaakov | $10,000 |
| Yeshiva Of Spring Valley | $10,000 |
| Yeshiva Of Spring Valley | $8,000 |
| The Jacob Perlman Memorial Foundation | $6,000 |
| American Friends of Neveh Zion | $5,000 |
| Talmudic Research Institute | $4,000 |
| Congregation Torah U Teffilah Inc | $4,000 |
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.
57 repeat relationships — 48 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 109 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call). Read against FY2024, 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
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 58% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $90k 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
- TJThe Jacob Perlman Memorial Foundation2× · 2024–2025 · $19k · revenue +13% · 37% of their budget
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF NEVEH ZION2× · 2024–2025 · $7k · revenue +0%
- MCMENUCHA CHESED SERVICES CORP2× · 2022–2023 · $2k · revenue +403%
Funded once
- JPJACOB PERLMAN FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $18k
- CYCONGREGATION YESHIVA EITZ CHAIM KLETZKone grant, 2022 · $18k
- CYCONGREGATION YESIVA EITZ CHAIM KLETZKone grant, 2022 · $18k
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.
Religious Teaching
Religious School
Maintain communal and charitable affairs in accordance with the tradition of the orthodox jewish faith
Provides finacial assistance to needy individuals and to religious, charitable organizations
Provide financial assistance to needy individuals, and to religious, educational, and charitable organizations in us and abroad.
To support and promote the study of torah (bible) among members of jewish faith worldwide.
To operate a religious school for high school and post high school students.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of Yeshiva Dmir Inc and the most unlike its peers is Berg Family Charitable Foundation. 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 25 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 12% of your grantees by number, and just 6% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 10% 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.
74 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. 74 of the 255 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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.
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: The Ojc Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · The Fishoff Family Foundation · Regina Goldwasser Foundation · The Weiskopf Family Foundation · Marbeh Shalom Foundation Inc · Zichron Chaim Charity Fund · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · The Jmg Foundation · Donors Fund Inc · National Society for Hebrew Day Schools
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Kitov Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Kitov 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.