Skip to content

· Private foundation

Lebovitz 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.

$2k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$1k
Largest
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Religion$16kEmployment$13kHuman Services$5kHousing & Shelter$4kHealth$429Philanthropy$406Education$281Public Benefit$253Other$0
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$104
Median grant
4
States reached
$147k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Rodef Shalom$1,300
Goodwill Industries S Fla$741
Vet's Helping Heros$150
Advenntura Turnberry Jewish Center$104
FSHD SOCIETY$54
Congregation Beth Shalom$37
Hillel Jewish Univeristy Center$18
American Zionist Movement$5
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 (FY20–20, $195) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Victory Living Program: $195 → 13%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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$35k · 7 repeat orgs$5k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +29% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
14

Total granted

$35k
$4k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+29%
0%

Still filing today

14%
21%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $114 went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesPublic BenefitEducationHealthReligionOther
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

  • RS
    Rodef Shalom
    5× · 2021–2025 · $19k
  • GI
    Goodwill Industries S Fla
    5× · 2021–2025 · $9k
  • GO
    Goodwill of New England
    5× · 2021–2025 · $5k

Funded once

  • GI
    Goodwill Industries of Southern Flo
    one grant, 2020 · $3k
  • GI
    Goodwill Industries of Pittsburgh
    one grant, 2022 · $320
  • VL
    VICTORY LIVING PROGRAMS INC
    one grant, 2020 · $195 · revenue -8%
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
Weizmann Institute of Science

The weizmann institute of science, located in rehovot, israel, is one of the worlds top-ranking, multidisciplinary research institutions. at any one time, several thousand scientists, staff and students are involved in hundreds of research…

Science & Tech
2
American Friends of Hebrew University Inc

Support the hebrew univ. of jerusalem, israel's foremost center of higher edu. & research.

International
3
Hillel the Foundation for Jewish Campus Life At the Penn State University

To enrich the lives of jewish and undergraduate students so that they may enrich the jewish people and the world. penn state hillel's student leaders, professionals, and lay leaders are dedicated to creating a pluralistic, welcoming, and…

—
4
Hebrew College

Promotes excellence in jewish learning & leadership within a pluralistic environment. see sch ohebrew college promotes excellence in jewish learning and leadership within a pluralistic environment of open inquiry, intellectual rigor,…

Education
5
Hillel At Washington University in St Louis

The mission of hillel at washington university in st louis is to be a catalyst for jewish life among college students in st louis. we connect students with one another and with jewish culture and traditions through service and social…

—
6
Minneapolis Jewish Federation

Minneapolis jewish federation is a nonprofit organization that promotes a culture of philanthropy, leverages resources to meet local and global jewish needs, and facilitates community planning to ensure a thriving and secure future.

Philanthropy
7
University of Southern California Hillel Foundation

To create an informed, celebratory and satisfying jewish community for students at the university of southern california, to deepen jewish identity through social, intellectual and spiritual participation, to offer diversified…

—
8
The Jewish Fund

The jewish fund is organized and operates exclusively for charitable, educational, and religious purposes. the fund's primary activities are: supporting a jewish health care mission in the greater detroit area and michigan; promotion of…

Philanthropy
9
Abraham Joshua Heschel Day School

Abraham joshua heschel day school cultivates students' natural sense of wonder into an exceptionally rich education that encourages critical thinking, creativity, and compassion. in partnership with our families, we inspire our students to…

—
10
University of Pittsburgh

The university of pittsburgh, founded in 1787, is one of the oldest institutions of higher education in the united states and one of the nation's top public research universities. for more than two centuries, the university of pittsburgh…

Education
11
The Shalom Hartman Institute of North America

The shalom hartman institute (shi) is a leading research and educational center serving israel and world jewry. we work to enrich the moral and spiritual life of israel and the jewish people, deepen the commitment to pluralism and israel's…

International
12
Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Committed to exceptional healthcare quality for all and actively engaged with our community, einstein drives scientific discovery and educates compassionate leaders in health and science.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hillel Jewish University Center; the most unlike its peers is Jewish Culture High School Inc. 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

9 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. 9 of the 27 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Rodef Shalom: $19,335 · OtherRodef ShalomGoodwill Industries S Fla: $9,457 · OtherGoodwill Industries S FlaGoodwill of New England: $5,369 · OtherGoodwill of New EnglandGoodwill Industries of Southern Flo: $3,122 · OtherGoodwill Industries of Southern Flo+16 more: $1,881 · OtherVets Helping Heroes Inc: $253 · Public BenefitVICTORY LIVING PROGRAMS INC: $195 · Human ServicesJewish Culture High School Inc: $143 · EducationTHE PITTSBURGH FOUNDATION: $100 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH: $18 · PhilanthropyFSHD SOCIETY: $54 · HealthAmerican Zionist Movement Inc: $5 · Religion
Other$39,164Public Benefit$253Human Services$195Education$143Philanthropy$118Health$54Religion$5

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 budgetVets Helping Heroes Inc: $253 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetJewish Culture High School Inc: $143 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE PITTSBURGH FOUNDATION: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCarnegie Mellon University: $18 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHILLEL JEWISH UNIVERSITY CENTER: $18 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH: $18 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican Zionist Movement Inc: $5 over 1y, 0.0% 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 Vets Helping Heroes Inc ↗
  • Who funds VICTORY LIVING PROGRAMS INC ↗
  • Who funds Jewish Culture High School Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE PITTSBURGH FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds FSHD SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds Carnegie Mellon University ↗
  • Who funds HILLEL JEWISH UNIVERSITY CENTER ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH ↗
  • Who funds American Zionist Movement Inc ↗

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.

National Philanthropic TrustPA8.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Lebovitz Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Lebovitz Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%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
    3get 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 27 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Lebovitz’s filings →

    More from the funding graph