· Private foundation
Lawrence Charitable Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k6 grants · $21k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $140k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CONG CHINO V CHISDA | $35,000 |
| CHARITABLE RECPIENTS 1500 OR LESS | $29,558 |
| Central Fund of Israel | $25,000 |
| VAAD HARABONIM LINYANEI TZEDAKA | $25,000 |
| CONG AHAVAS TZEDEKA VCHESSED | $25,000 |
| CHESED FUND | $5,000 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF NETIV ARYEH | $5,000 |
| CHARIDY FOUNDATION | $4,000 |
| New York Medical College | $3,000 |
| YOUNG ISRAEL OF LAWRENCE CEDARHURST | $1,975 |
| Nezer Yisroel Inc | $1,800 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
Its human-services grants (FY21–21, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 9% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
How this is measured
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +61% since the first grant, against +50% for those funded once.
11 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 4 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, 78% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $36k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- IGIndividual grant recipient4× · 2020–2024 · $110k
- CRCHARITABLE RECPIENTS 1500 OR LESS3× · 2022–2024 · $78k
- VHVAAD HARABONIM LINYANEI TZEDAKA3× · 2022–2024 · $60k
Funded once
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE RAMBAM MEDICAL CENTERone grant, 2020 · $36k · revenue 0%
- AFAM FRIENDS OF RAMBAMone grant, 2022 · $30k
- HHAFTRone grant, 2021 · $25k
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.
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.
To support religious, charitable, scientific, literary and/or educational programs
To provide assistance to yeshivat nahar shalom, an educational institution located in israel.
To provide support to jewish religious education in israel and around the world, and provide financial assistance to and on behalf of yeshivah beth israel tifereth menachem.
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.
To promote, benefit, and support Jewish religious, charitable & educational activities in Israel and the USA.
To voluntarily assist the house of religious learning known as yeshiva neveh zion in israel
To further jewish education in israel
The purpose of the organization is to provide financial support to jewish religious educational institutions in israel and around the world.
The organization's primary mission is charitable and religious in nature, supporting judaic and rabbinical education by providing financial assistance to institutions of jewish learning, currently through grants to shaare mordechai in…
To provide grants to religious schools providing higher education
To provide financial support to the yeshiva knesseth yisroel institution, its rabbis, and students, and lend support to other religious institutions in israel and around the world, with the goal of furthering jewish values among the jewish…
Furtherance of jewish education
How this is measured
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 61 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.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
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.
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.
Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · Alyad Foundation Inc · Fjc · Astar Foundation Inc · Cross River Community Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization Lawrence Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Lawrence Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Lawrence Charitable Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Lawrence Charitable 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.
Play a game based on Lawrence’s filings →