Skip to content
Michael & Anita Siegal Family Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Michael & Anita Siegal Family Foundation

Further the charitable, educational, and religious purposes of the jewish federation of cleveland ("federation").

$121k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Philanthropy$152kReligion$95kPublic Safety & Disaster$94kYouth Development$81kHealth$60kFood & Nutrition$24kEnvironment$10k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $82,500, the rows itemized in this filing. The $121,100 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $38,600 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $75k
$15,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$2.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC$25,000
ADAMAH$25,000
FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMP INC$15,000
JEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND$10,000
HILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE$7,500
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 (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMP INC: $15k → 17%CHABAD OF BONITA SPRINGS INC: $10k → 11%HILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE: $14k → 12%JEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND: $64k → 17%ADAMAH: $25k → 11%FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMP INC: $15k → 17%HILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE: $8k → 12%JEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND: $30k → 17%PEARLSTONE CONFERENCE & RETREAT CENTER INC: $15k → 11%FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMP INC: $15k → 17%HILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE: $8k → 12%JEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND: $13k → 17%ADAMAH: $15k → 11%FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMP INC: $12k → 17%HILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE: $8k → 12%JEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND: $10k → 17%FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMP INC: $12k → 17%HILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE: $8k → 12%JEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND: $10k → 17%FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMP INC: $12k → 17%JEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND: $10k → 17%JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC: $32k → 17%CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: $60k → 17%JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC: $25k → 17%CLEVELAND HILLEL FOUNDATION INC: $10k → 17%JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC: $15k → 17%JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC: $13k → 17%JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC: $13k → 17%JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC: $13k → 17%HAZON INC: $10k → 17%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 24% of Michael & Anita Siegal Family Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 49% of the giving stays in OH; by stated purpose, 34%.

Michael & Anita Siegal Family Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 35% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$180k · 3 repeat orgs$90k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +131% since the first grant, against +13% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
4

Total granted

$180k
$90k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+131%
+13%

Still filing today

100%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’25
Youth DevelopmentEducationReligionPhilanthropyOther
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

  • FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMP INC
    7× · 2019–2025 · $81k · revenue +131%
  • AI
    ADAMAH INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $55k · revenue +365%
  • HF
    Hillel Foundation at Miami University
    6× · 2020–2025 · $44k · revenue +29%

Funded once

  • CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2022 · $60k · revenue +13%
  • CH
    CLEVELAND HILLEL FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue +24%
  • CO
    CHABAD OF BONITA SPRINGS INC
    one grant, 2019 · $10k
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
University of Judaism Foundation
—
2
Greater Miami Hillel Foundation Inc

The mission of the organization is to enrich the lives of jewish undergraduate and graduate students so that they may enrich the jewish people and the world.

—
3
The University of Iowa Louis Shulman Hillel Foundation

The mission of Iowa Hillel is to enhance the lives of Jewish students at the University of Iowa, so they may enrich the Jewish people and the world. Iowa Hillel envisions a world for our students where they find a community here at Iowa…

—
4
Eastern European Jewish Heritage Foundation
Philanthropy
5
The Jewish Foundation of Cincinnati
Philanthropy
6
Hillel the Foundation for Jewish Campus Life

Hillel's mission is to enrich the lives of jewish undergraduate and graduate students so that they may enrich the jewish people and the world.

Religion
7
Hillel the Foundation for Jewish Campus Life

KU Hillel's mission is to connect Jewish students to each other and to their Judaism, to inspire and equip the next generation of Jewish leaders, and to build a thriving Jewish community on campus.

—
8
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary

To prepare students for the rabbinate and to issue the traditional certificate of ordination in connection therewith. the seminary is authorized to confer the degree of master of hebrew literature (m.h.l.), doctor of hebrew literature…

Education
9
Yeshiva University

The university is composed of several colleges and schools providing undergraduate, graduate, professional and post-doctoral education and training and research and clinical programs.

Education
10
The Jerusalem Connection
—
11
The Steinhardt Foundation for Jewish Life Inc
Religion
12
B'nai Brith Hillel Foundation At Princeton

Cjl partners with students and other members of the princeton community to sustain and grow a welcoming, multi-faceted and pluralistic jewish community that is fully-integrated into the fabric of campus life and which provides personally…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Federation of Cleveland; the most unlike its peers is Hillel Foundation at Miami University. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

8 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. 8 of the 9 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)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND: $136,500 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELANDTHE JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC: $109,000 · PhilanthropyTHE JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INCCLEVELAND HILLEL FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · PhilanthropyFOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMP INC: $81,000 · Youth DevelopmentFOUNDATION FOR JE…Hillel Foundation at Miami University: $44,000 · OtherHillel Foundat…CHABAD OF BONITA SPRINGS INC: $10,000 · OtherCHABAD OF BONI…HAZON INC: $10,000 · OtherHAZON INCCASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: $60,000 · EducationCASE WESTERN …ADAMAH INC: $55,000 · ReligionADAMAH INC
Philanthropy$255,500Youth Development$81,000Other$64,000Education$60,000Religion$55,000

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 budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND: $136,500 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetTHE JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC: $109,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMP INC: $81,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetCASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: $60,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetADAMAH INC: $55,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetHillel Foundation at Miami University: $44,000 over 6y, 3.5% of budgetCLEVELAND HILLEL FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetHAZON INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.3% 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.

Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO7.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Michael & Anita Siegal Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Michael & Anita Siegal Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Michael & Anita Siegal Family Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Michael & Anita Siegal Family 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.

    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 9 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Michael & Anita Siegal Family’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