Skip to content
Lester & Gertrude Roth Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Lester & Gertrude Roth Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$500
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$500
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$27kReligion$15kPhilanthropy$14kFood & Nutrition$13kRecreation & Sports$6kHealth$4kEnvironment$1kCrime & Legal$1kOther$0
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$500
Median grant
1
States reached
$242k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WEST POINT JEWISH CHAPEL FUND$500
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 56% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%SWARTHMORE COLLEGE: $10k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY: $500 → 10%DISABLED SPORTS EASTERN SIERRA: $3k → 10%COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOC OF CALIF: $1k → 11%MINDS MATTER LOS ANGELES: $500 → 14%MAUI FOOD BANK: $3k → 9%WEST POINT JEWISH CHAPEL FUND: $500 → 14%US HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUS: $750 → 14%NORTHWESTER UNIVERSITY: $500 → 14%SWATHMORE COLLEGE: $10k → 10%DISABLED SPORTS EASTERN SIERRA: $2k → 10%AMERICAN JEWISH UNIVERSITY: $500 → 14%CHESTER CHILDRENS CHOIR: $3k → 10%DISABLED SPORTS EASTERN SIERRA: $2k → 10%Minds Matter Los Angeles: $500 → 14%CHESTER CHILDRENS CHORUS: $3k → 10%USC LAW SCHOOL: $500 → 14%SWARTHMORE COLLEGE: $2k → 10%MALIBU JEWISH CENTER SYNAGOGUE: $4k → 14%MAILU JEWISH CENTER SYNAGOUGE: $2k → 14%MAILU JEWISH CENTER SYNAGOUGE: $2k → 14%KEHILLAT ISRAEL: $6k → 14%Kehillat Israel: $1k → 14%LOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK: $6k → 14%BET TZEDEK LEGAL SERVICES: $1k → 14%LOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK: $5k → 14%SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL: $500 → 14%JEWISH FEDERATION COUNCIL OF LOS AN: $6k → 14%Jewish Federation Ukraine Fund: $5k → 14%JEWISH LOS ANGELES TRUST: $3k → 14%JEWISH LOS ANGELES SPECIAL NEEDS TR: $3k → 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

61%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$51k · 5 repeat orgs$32k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
18

Total granted

$51k
$32k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+14%
+30%

Still filing today

60%
28%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $500 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationFood & NutritionYouth DevelopmentRecreation & SportsReligionOther
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

  • SWARTHMORE COLLEGE
    4× · 2017–2021 · $24k · revenue +52%
  • LA
    LOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK
    2× · 2020–2021 · $11k · revenue -1%
  • KI
    KEHILLAT ISRAEL RECONSTRUCTIONIST CONGREGATION OF PACIFIC PALISADES
    2× · 2019–2022 · $7k

Funded once

  • JF
    JEWISH FEDERATION COUNCIL OF LOS AN
    one grant, 2023 · $6k
  • JF
    Jewish Federation Ukraine Fund
    one grant, 2022 · $5k
  • MJ
    MALIBU JEWISH CENTER SYNAGOGUE
    one grant, 2023 · $4k
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
Furman University

The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.

Education
2
Manhattanville University

To educate students to be ethical and socially responsible leaders in a global community.

Education
3
Albright College

As a diverse community of learners, we cultivate integrity, curiosity, connection and resilience.

Education
4
Boston Architectural College

The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.

—
5
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
6
Manhattan University

Manhattan university is an independent catholic instituion of higher learning that embraces qualified men and women of all faiths, cultures, and traditions. the mission of manhattan university is to provide a contemporary, person-centered…

Education
7
Sarah Lawrence College

At sarah lawrence college, our mission is to graduate citizens of the world who are diverse in every definition of the word, who take intellectual and creative risks, and who are able to focus exceptional intellectual discipline (continued…

Education
8
Fordham University

Fordham university, the jesuit university of new york, is committed to the discovery of wisdom and the transmission of learning, through research and through education of the highest quality. for more information, see schedule o.

Education
9
University of New Haven

The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…

Education
10
University of La Verne

The university of la verne offers a distinctive and relevant educational experience to a diverse population of traditional-age, adult, and graduate learners, preparing them for successful careers and a commitment to lifelong learning…

Education
11
Lehigh University

The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…

Education
12
Loyola University

Loyola University New Orleans, a Jesuit and Catholic institution of higher education, welcomes students of diverse backgrounds and prepares them to lead meaningful lives with and for others; to pursue truth, wisdom, and virtue; and to work…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Jewish University; the most unlike its peers is West Point Jewish Chapel Fund. 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 24 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK: $10,500 · OtherLOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANKKEHILLAT ISRAEL RECONSTRUCTIONIST CONGREGATION OF PACIFIC PALISADES: $7,000 · OtherKEHILLAT ISRAEL RECONSTRUCTIONIST CONGREGATION OF PACIFIC PALISAD…JEWISH FEDERATION COUNCIL OF LOS AN: $5,500 · OtherJEWISH FEDERATION COUNCIL OF LOS ANJewish Federation Ukraine Fund: $5,000 · OtherJewish Federation Ukraine FundMAILU JEWISH CENTER SYNAGOUGE: $3,600 · OtherMAILU JEWISH CENTER SYNAGOUGEMALIBU JEWISH CENTER SYNAGOGUE: $3,600 · OtherMALIBU JEWISH CENTER SYNAGOGUEJEWISH LOS ANGELES SPECIAL NEEDS TR: $3,000 · OtherJEWISH LOS ANGELES SPECIAL NEEDS TRJEWISH LOS ANGELES TRUST: $3,000 · OtherJEWISH LOS ANGELES TRUSTIndividual grant recipient: $2,500 · Other+7 more: $4,750 · Other+7 moreSWARTHMORE COLLEGE: $24,000 · EducationSWARTHMORE COLLEGEACCESS MAMMOTH: $6,000 · EducationACCESS MAMMOTH+2 more: $1,000 · EducationMAUI FOOD BANK INC: $2,500 · Food & NutritionWEST POINT JEWISH CHAPEL FUND: $500 · ReligionNorthwestern University: $500 · Recreation & SportsMINDS MATTER OF LOS ANGELES INC: $500 · Youth Development
Other$48,450Education$31,000Food & Nutrition$2,500Religion$500Recreation & Sports$500Youth Development$500

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSWARTHMORE COLLEGE: $24,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetLOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK: $10,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetACCESS MAMMOTH: $6,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetMAUI FOOD BANK INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWEST POINT JEWISH CHAPEL FUND: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN JEWISH UNIVERSITY: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNorthwestern University: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMINDS MATTER OF LOS ANGELES INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% 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 SWARTHMORE COLLEGE ↗
  • Who funds LOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds ACCESS MAMMOTH ↗
  • Who funds MAUI FOOD BANK INC ↗
  • Who funds WEST POINT JEWISH CHAPEL FUND ↗
  • Who funds SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN JEWISH UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds Northwestern University ↗
  • Who funds MINDS MATTER OF LOS ANGELES 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 Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA9.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Lester & Gertrude Roth Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Lester & Gertrude Roth Foundation. 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%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report 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 24 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Lester & Gertrude Roth’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