Skip to content

· Private foundation

Kosins Family Foundation

Its FY2019 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$111k
Granted FY2019
19
Grants FY2019
4
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2019.

Religion$147kArts & Culture$22kHealth$11kInternational$8kEducation$6kHuman Services$5kYouth Development$3kAnimals$2kOther$0
02FY2019 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2019

  • Under $10k15 grants · $37k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $74k
$2,500
Median grant
4
States reached
$149k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Rohr Jewish Learning Institute$25,000
Lubavitch Yeshivas of Detroit$17,600
Chabad of Eastern Michigan$16,000
Sara Tugman Bais Chabad Torah Ctr$15,000
Jewish Family Svcs of Metro Detroit$4,500
National Jewish Retreat-Rohr Inst$4,200
Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue$4,000
JARC$3,500
Chabad on Campus$3,500
Hebrew Free Loan Society$2,500
The Jewish Hospice Chaplaincy$2,500
The Friendship Circle$2,500
Holocaust Memorial Center$2,250
Ferndale Jewish Center$2,000
Israel Guide Dog Center - USA$1,800
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 (FY18–19, $12k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 39% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%Hebrew Free Loan Society: $3k → 17%Hebrew Free Loan Society: $2k → 17%JARC: $4k → 8%JARC: $4k → 8%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.

59%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$122k · 14 repeat orgs$83k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +200% since the first grant, against +78% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2019, 3 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
8

Total granted

$122k
$39k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+200%
+78%

Still filing today

29%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 60% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $45k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19
Human ServicesEducationInternationalReligionPhilanthropyArts & CultureOther
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

  • CF
    Central Fund of Israel
    3× · 2017–2019 · $5k · revenue +145%
  • HF
    HEBREW FREE LOAN SOCIETY INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $5k · revenue +200%
  • TW
    THE WURTMAN FOUNDATION INC
    2× · 2017–2019 · $3k · revenue +268%

Funded once

  • JM
    Jewish Musical Heritage Fdtn
    one grant, 2018 · $20k
  • CO
    Cheder Oholei Yosef Yitzchk Lubvtch
    one grant, 2018 · $7k
  • OY
    Oholei Yosef Yitzchak Lubavitchgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $6k · revenue +126%
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
University of Judaism Foundation
—
2
Jewish Life Foundation
—
3
The Keren Rachaim Fund
—
4
Ohel Yakov Foundation
—
5
Keren Yad Le-Yosef Foundation Trust
—
6
Israel Kuzminsky Memorial Foundation
—
7
Yad Yosef Foundation
Philanthropy
8
The Bnai Jacob Foundation
—
9
Bais Yisrael Foundation
—
10
Joseph and Malka Melohn Foundation
—
11
Ohr Yitzchok Foundation
Philanthropy
12
Foundation for Conservative Judiasm of South Florida
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Holocaust Memorial Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Kln Foundation. 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

8 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. 8 of the 30 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JEWISH LEARNING INSTITUTE INC: $31,000 · OtherJEWISH LEARNING INSTITUTE INCChabad of Eastern Michigan: $25,000 · OtherChabad of Eastern MichiganJewish Musical Heritage Fdtn: $20,000 · OtherJewish Musical Heritage FdtnLubavitch Yeshivas of Detroit: $17,600 · OtherLubavitch Yeshivas of DetroitSara Tugman Bais Chabad Torah Ctr: $15,000 · OtherSara Tugman Bais Chabad Torah CtrJewish Family Svcs of Metro Detroit: $9,072 · OtherNational Jewish Retreat-Rohr Inst: $8,700 · OtherCheder Oholei Yosef Yitzchk Lubvtch: $6,500 · OtherLubavitch Yeshivah of Detroit: $6,200 · Other+14 more: $37,200 · Other+14 moreJARC: $7,000 · Human ServicesHEBREW FREE LOAN SOCIETY INC: $4,500 · Human ServicesOholei Yosef Yitzchak Lubavitch: $6,000 · EducationCentral Fund of Israel: $5,000 · InternationalTHE WURTMAN FOUNDATION INC: $3,000 · ReligionHOLOCAUST MEMORIAL CENTER INC: $2,250 · Arts & CultureKLN FOUNDATION: $1,000 · Philanthropy
Other$176,272Human Services$11,500Education$6,000International$5,000Religion$3,000Arts & Culture$2,250Philanthropy$1,000

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 budgetJARC: $7,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCentral Fund of Israel: $5,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetHEBREW FREE LOAN SOCIETY INC: $4,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE WURTMAN FOUNDATION INC: $3,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetHOLOCAUST MEMORIAL CENTER INC: $2,250 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMIDDLE EAST RESEARCH CENTER LTD: $1,500 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetKLN FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 1.3% 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 JARC ↗
  • Who funds Oholei Yosef Yitzchak Lubavitch ↗
  • Who funds Central Fund of Israel ↗
  • Who funds HEBREW FREE LOAN SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds THE WURTMAN FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds MIDDLE EAST RESEARCH CENTER LTD ↗
  • Who funds KLN FOUNDATION ↗

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.

Jewish Federation of DetroitMI13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Federation of Detroit · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Kosins Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Kosins Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–20%
    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 30 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Kosins Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph