Skip to content

· Private foundation

Michael and Gila Rollhaus 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.

$70k
Granted FY2022
8
Grants FY2022
5
States reached
$44k
Largest
01What it funds
0186% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2022.

Human Services$58kReligion$56kInternational$37kArts & Culture$1kPhilanthropy$1kEducation$600Other$0
02FY2022 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • Under $10k5 grants · $3k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $67k
$1,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$63k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE GUSH ETZION FOUNDATION$44,000
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVAT HAMEIRI$13,000
FRIENDS OF ITAMAR$10,000
CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL$1,000
BNEI DAVID FOUNDATION$1,000
ISRAEL INDEPENDENCE FUND$1,000
YOUNG ISRAEL OF LAWRENCE CEDARHURST$250
AISHEL HOUSE$180
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 (FY20–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 74% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%THE GUSH ETZION FOUNDATION: $44k → 16%ISRAEL EMPOWERED: $1k → 6%SHEVACH HIGHSCHOOL: $600 → 13%TEMECH USA: $2k → 17%FRIENDS OF ITAMAR: $10k → 20%AISHEL HOUSE: $180 → 16%ISRAEL INDEPENDENCE FUND: $1k → 11%BNEI DAVID FOUNDATION: $1k → 7%THE GUSH ETZION FOUNDATION: $14k → 16%CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL: $36k → 6%HATZOLAH OF QUEENS: $180 → 13%TEMECH USA: $1k → 17%FRIENDS OF ITAMAR: $4k → 20%BNEI DAVID FOUNDATION: $1k → 7%CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL: $1k → 6%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVAT HAMEIRI: $13k → 13%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ATERET COHANIM: $500 → 17%FRIENDS OF ITAMAR: $3k → 20%YOUNG ISRAEL OF LAWRENCE CEDARHURST: $250 → 6%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVAT HAMEIRI: $12k → 13%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVAT HAMEIRI: $12k → 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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$153k · 6 repeat orgs$4k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2022, 1 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
4

Total granted

$153k
$2k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+98%
+143%

Still filing today

67%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22
InternationalReligionPhilanthropyArts & CultureOther
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

  • GE
    Gush Etzion Foundation % Juliette Landesman
    2× · 2021–2022 · $58k · revenue +699%
  • CF
    Central Fund of Israel
    2× · 2021–2022 · $37k · revenue +98%
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF ITAMAR INCORPORATED
    3× · 2020–2022 · $17k · revenue +2%

Funded once

  • IE
    Israel Empowered Incgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $1k · revenue +123%
  • SH
    SHEVACH HIGHSCHOOL
    one grant, 2020 · $600
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ATERET COHANIM INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $500 · revenue +143%
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
Sherit Isroel
—
2
Bronfman Youth Fellowships to Israel in Inc
Youth Development
3
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
—
4
Bais Yisrael Foundation
—
5
Idf Memorial Foundation
Philanthropy
6
American Friends of Amshinover Yeshiva Jerusalem Inc

Support of religious schools in Israel

International
7
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
8
American Friends of Torat Eliyahu
Philanthropy
9
Israel Initiative 2020 Inc
International
10
American Friends of Even Yisroel Charitable Foundation
Philanthropy
11
American Friends of Keshet Yehuda Nfp

religious and educational program for post high school youth

Philanthropy
12
Us Israel Education Fund Inc
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Israel Independence Fund; the most unlike its peers is American Friends of Yeshivat Hameiri 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

7 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. 7 of the 13 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
7/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Gush Etzion Foundation % Juliette Landesman: $58,000 · InternationalGush Etzion Foundation % Juliette LandesmanCentral Fund of Israel: $37,000 · InternationalCentral Fund of Israel+1 more: $500 · InternationalAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVAT HAMEIRI INC: $36,500 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA…+1 more: $1,000 · PhilanthropyFRIENDS OF ITAMAR INCORPORATED: $17,000 · ReligionFRIENDS OF IT…BNEI DAVID FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 · ReligionBNEI DAVID FO…Individual grant recipient: $2,500 · OtherSHEVACH HIGHSCHOOL: $600 · OtherYOUNG ISRAEL OF LAWRENCE CEDARHURST: $250 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $180 · OtherAISHEL HOUSE INC: $180 · OtherIsrael Empowered Inc: $1,000 · Arts & Culture
International$95,500Philanthropy$37,500Religion$19,000Other$3,710Arts & Culture$1,000

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 budgetGush Etzion Foundation % Juliette Landesman: $58,000 over 2y, 18% of budgetCentral Fund of Israel: $37,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF ITAMAR INCORPORATED: $17,000 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetBNEI DAVID FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetIsrael Empowered Inc: $1,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetTHE ISRAEL INDEPENDENCE FUND: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF ATERET COHANIM 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.

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 FundNY15.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · Cherna Moskowitz Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Michael and Gila Rollhaus Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Michael and Gila Rollhaus Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%1%5%11%20%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
    3get 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 13 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2022, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Michael and Gila Rollhaus’ filings →

    More from the funding graph