Skip to content
Leaf(The Lowy Endowment & Annuity Foundation) Inc at a glance

· Public charity

Leaf(The Lowy Endowment & Annuity Foundation) Inc

To raise charitable contributions from friends, family, and outside contacts; purchase endowment and redistribute the earnings to other charitable organizations.

$165k
Granted FY2019
5
Grants FY2019
2
States reached
$78k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2019 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $155,200, the rows itemized in this filing. The $165,200 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $10,000 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2019

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $128k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$296k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMERICAN FRIENDS TORAH & TEFILAH OF$78,000
LEV CHESED CHARITY FUND$50,000
WESTSIDE KOLLEL INC$10,000
BIKUR CHOLIM OF LOS ANGELES$10,000
HARKHAM HILLEL HERBREW ACADEMY$7,200
02The need
02

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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY19–19) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 18% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%WESTSIDE KOLLEL INC: $10k → 14%AMERICAN FRIENDS TORAH & TEFILAH OF: $78k → 6%LEV CHESED CHARITY FUND: $50k → 9%HARKHAM HILLEL HERBREW ACADEMY: $7k → 14%BIKUR CHOLIM OF LOS ANGELES: $10k → 14%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 field
03the grantee network

3 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. 3 of the 5 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
3/3
Grantees still filing
2/3
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AMERICAN FRIENDS OF TORAH AND TEFILAH RAMAT ESHKOL INC: $78,000 · ReligionAMERICAN FRIENDS OF TORAH AND TEFILAH RAMAT ESHKOL INCLEV CHESED CHARITY FUND INC: $50,000 · PhilanthropyLEV CHESED CHARITY FUND INCWESTSIDE KOLLEL INC: $10,000 · OtherWESTSIDE KOL…HILLEL HEBREW ACADEMY: $7,200 · OtherHILLEL HEBRE…BIKUR CHOLIM: $10,000 · Health
Religion$78,000Philanthropy$50,000Other$17,200Health$10,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF TORAH AND TEFILAH RAMAT ESHKOL INC: $78,000 over 1y, 6.8% of budgetLEV CHESED CHARITY FUND INC: $50,000 over 1y, 74% 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.

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 Communal FundFidelity Investments …
Jewish Communal FundNY12.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Leaf(The Lowy Endowment & Annuity Foundation) Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Leaf(The Lowy Endowment & Annuity Foundation) Inc. 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 5 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2022) is on record and reports $165k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2019, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Leaf(The Lowy Endowment & Annuity Foundation)’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home