· Private foundation
Linda & Jack Tamir Charitable 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.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 63% of LINDA & JACK TAMIR CHARITABLE FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k15 grants · $47k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $149k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $244k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BRUCE SPRINSTEEN ARCHIVES & CENTER FOR AMERICAN MUSIC | $100,000 |
| THE SPECIAL CHILDREN CENTER | $73,800 |
| EDMOND J SAFRA SYN OF DEAL | $70,101 |
| CONGREGATION BETH TORAH | $49,137 |
| RANDIS CARE INC | $38,000 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF CHABAD LUBAVITCH ARUBA INC | $26,000 |
| SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY CENTER | $15,550 |
| THE SAFE FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| KINGS HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ASSOCIATION | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $7,200 |
| Individual grant recipient | $7,000 |
| ANGUILLA PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION OF NY | $5,000 |
| SEPHARDIC CENTER OF RABBINIC & SECULAR | $5,000 |
| LEV CHANA | $4,000 |
| HATZALAH EMS OF THE JERSEY SHORE | $3,600 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY23–25, $34k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +35% since the first grant, against +8% for the ones you funded once.
20 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $153k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- SSSHEFA SCHOOL2× · 2023–2024 · $50k · revenue +35%
- SFSAFE FOUNDATION INC4× · 2020–2025 · $31k · revenue +43%
- SCSEPHARDIC COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER INC2× · 2024–2025 · $31k · revenue +5%
Funded once
- AEAHI EZER CONGREGATIONone grant, 2024 · $36k
- ATA Torah Infertilty Medium Exchangeone grant, 2024 · $28k · revenue +20%
- YOYESHIVA OHR YITZCHOKone grant, 2023 · $25k · revenue -31%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Congregation beth-el sephardic center of jamaica estates is a religious institution
To provide financial assistance to jewish educational and charitable causes.
Chabad of Bensonhurst Inc is an organization dedicated to furthering the religious, educational, and charitable needs of the Jewish Community.
To support and promote the study of torah (bible) among members of jewish faith worldwide.
Operation of a post-secondary educational institution providing rabbinical training with a focus on sephardic/middle eastern jewish tradition.
Religious School
A school-section 170(b)(1)(a)(ii), operating from the preschool pre-k level through high school, and chartered ny the new york state education department and board of regents.
Religious & charitable- to provide funds to enable the study of torah.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Migdal Bais Yaakov Inc and the most unlike its peers is Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 18 years old; the field is 18. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 13% of your grantees by number, and just 7% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
31 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 31 of the 70 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN ARCHIVES AND CENTER FOR AMERICAN MUSIC CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds SHEFA SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds RANDIS CARE INC ↗
- Who funds SAFE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds A Torah Infertilty Medium Exchange ↗
- Who funds American Friends of Chabad Lubavitch Aruba INC ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA OHR YITZCHOK ↗
- Who funds Shmira Community Services Inc ↗
- Who funds Yeshivat Lev Torah ↗
- Who funds THE SEPHARDIC HERITAGE MUSEUM INC ↗
- Who funds SHARE OF NEW SQUARE INC DBA CHESED 247 ↗
- Who funds KINGS HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds UNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC ↗
- Who funds LUNG CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SIMHA ORGANIZATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE SEPHARDIC FOOD FUND INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · The Howard Hoffman & Sons Foundation Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Isaac & Marjorie Gindi Foundation Inc · Joseph Jack Sitt 1986 - Charitable Trust · Jack D Cohen Foundation Inc · The Ralph S Gindi Family Foundation · E R G Foundation · Ted & Renee Serure Family Foundation · The Dweck and Rahmey Family Foundation · Altoon Sutton Memorial Fund · The Mamiye Foundation Inc
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Linda & Jack Tamir Charitable Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Yeshiva Keter Torah Inc — 8% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Linda & Jack Tamir Charitable Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Linda & Jack Tamir 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.