Skip to content

· Private foundation

Muriel G and Norman B Leventhal Charitable Trust

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.

$200k
Granted FY2022
2
Grants FY2022
1
States reached
$175k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

88% of Muriel G and Norman B Leventhal Charitable Trust’s FY2022 grant dollars went to Combined Jewish Philanthropies Of Greater Boston Inc, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2022 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Organizations named directly on the return

3
’17
1
’18
1
’19
0
’20
0
’21
0
’22

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2022.

Education$5.9MPhilanthropy$4.6MHuman Services$300kHealth$200kReligion$125kArts & Culture$1k
02FY2022 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $175k
$175,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
COMBINED JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES$175,000
TEMPLE EMANUEL$25,000
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 (FY17–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $1.5M → 8%CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOSTON: $100k → 16%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $1.5M → 8%CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOSTON: $100k → 16%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $1.4M → 8%NORMAN B LEVENTHAL MAP CENTER: $125k → 16%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $1.4M → 8%COMBINED JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES: $759k → 16%JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERS: $100k → 8%COMBINED JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES - NORMAN & MURIEL LEVENTHAL CHARIT FUND: $708k → 16%JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERS: $100k → 8%COMBINED JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES: $629k → 16%JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERS: $100k → 8%COMBINED JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES - NORMAN & MURIEL LEVENTHAL CHARIT FUND: $604k → 16%TEMPLE EMANUEL: $25k → 8%COMBINED JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES: $175k → 16%TEMPLE EMANUEL: $25k → 8%COMBINED JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES: $175k → 16%TEMPLE EMANUEL: $25k → 8%COMBINED JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES: $150k → 16%TEMPLE EMANUEL: $25k → 8%COMBINED JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES: $150k → 16%TEMPLE EMANUEL: $25k → 8%COMBINED JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES: $150k → 16%TEMPLE EMANUEL: $25k → 8%MURIEL & NORMAN B LEVENTHAL FAMILY FOUNDATION INC: $1.1M → 16%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.

63%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 4 repeat orgs$1.2M to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2022, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
3

Total granted

$2.0M
$1.2M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+91%
+356%

Still filing today

25%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22
PhilanthropyHealthEducationOther
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

  • CJ
    COMBINED JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES - NORMAN & MURIEL LEVENTHAL CHARIT FUND
    2× · 2018–2020 · $1.3M
  • JC
    JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERS
    3× · 2017–2019 · $300k
  • CH
    Children's Hospital Corporation
    2× · 2017–2018 · $200k · revenue +91%

Funded once

  • MN
    MURIEL & NORMAN B LEVENTHAL FAMILY FOUNDATION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $1.1M · revenue +356% · 100% of their budget
  • TN
    The Norman B Leventhal Map & Education Center Inc
    one grant, 2017 · $125k · revenue -27%
  • BM
    BOSTON MAP SOCIETY INC
    one grant, 2017 · $1k
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
04the grantee network

5 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. 5 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
4/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $5,767,500 · EducationMassachusetts Institute of Technology+1 more: $125,000 · EducationCombined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Inc: $2,188,500 · PhilanthropyCombined Jewish Philanthropies of…MURIEL & NORMAN B LEVENTHAL FAMILY FOUNDATION INC: $1,050,000 · PhilanthropyMURIEL & NORMAN B LEVENTHAL FAMIL…COMBINED JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES - NORMAN & MURIEL LEVENTHAL CHARIT FUND: $1,312,285 · OtherCOMBINED JEWISH PH…JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERS: $300,000 · OtherJEWISH COMMUNITY C…TEMPLE EMANUEL: $150,000 · OtherTEMPLE EMANUEL+1 more: $1,000 · OtherChildren's Hospital Corporation: $200,000 · Health
Education$5,892,500Philanthropy$3,238,500Other$1,763,285Health$200,000

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 budgetMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $5,767,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetCombined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Inc: $2,188,500 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetMURIEL & NORMAN B LEVENTHAL FAMILY FOUNDATION INC: $1,050,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetChildren's Hospital Corporation: $200,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetThe Norman B Leventhal Map & Education Center Inc: $125,000 over 1y, 5.0% 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 Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
  • Who funds Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Inc ↗
  • Who funds MURIEL & NORMAN B LEVENTHAL FAMILY FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Children's Hospital Corporation ↗
  • Who funds The Norman B Leventhal Map & Education Center Inc ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Muriel G and Norman B Leventhal Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Muriel G and Norman B Leventhal Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 35%
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 35% of income from government
  • Children's Hospital Corporation: 10% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get 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 · 0–40%
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 Muriel G and Norman B Leventhal Charitable Trust?

Find your warmest path to Muriel G and Norman B Leventhal Charitable Trust 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-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 Muriel G and Norman B Leventhal’s filings →

More from the funding graph