· Private foundation
Murray & Sydell Rosenberg Foundationinc
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
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k36 grants · $185k
- $10k–50k41 grants · $894k
- $50k–250k24 grants · $2.5M
- $250k+14 grants · $14M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL | $3,354,014 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,950,000 |
| AFO ZAVAT CHALAV INC | $2,434,013 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,670,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $706,699 |
| THE ALEPH INSTITUTE | $465,000 |
| ASSOCIATION OR | $426,096 |
| AFO BEIS MEDRESH TAHAROS | $422,183 |
| PMPA FUND INC | $396,595 |
| MACHNE ISRAEL INC | $325,375 |
| MEGED SHOMAYIM | $315,538 |
| TOMCHEI SHABBOS | $300,500 |
| RAYIM FOR CHAYIM | $293,504 |
| Individual grant recipient | $253,161 |
| CONGREGATION FOREST GLEN INC | $207,250 |
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 US giving — 75% of grant dollars ($151M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 25% that went abroad ($50M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY21–25, $4.2M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 98% 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.
Which US states your grants reach
Beyond the US — 25% of all-years giving ($50M)
3 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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 +8% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
131 repeat relationships — 81 still active in FY2025, 50 since wound down; 32 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, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $887k 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
- CFCentral Fund of Israel5× · 2021–2025 · $21M · revenue +98%
- TATHE ALEPH INSTITUTE INC5× · 2021–2025 · $4.3M · revenue +18%
- TSTHE SPECIAL CHILDREN CENTER5× · 2021–2025 · $2.2M · revenue +88%
Funded once
- AFAMERI FRIENDS OF ZAVAT CHALAV INCone grant, 2021 · $5.2M
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF BAIS MEDRASH TAHAROSgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $2.0M · revenue +37% · 39% of their budget
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD YEMIN INCone grant, 2021 · $1.4M · revenue -36%
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.
Religious School
The furthurance of jewish concepts and religious beliefs.
Raise funds for religious and educational institutions in the state of israel, and to provide funds to needy individuals in the state of israel.
publish religious books
Provide financial assistance to needy individuals, and to religious, educational, and charitable organizations in us and abroad.
encourage and facilitate the observance of traditional orthodox Jewish practices around the world.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chasdei Yisroel Inc and the most unlike its peers is Zichron Dovid 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 20 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.5% lost their exemption, against 12% 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.
104 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. 104 of the 294 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 Central Fund of Israel ↗
- Who funds THE ALEPH INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds THE SPECIAL CHILDREN CENTER ↗
- Who funds KEREN KIRYAT SEFER INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF BAIS MEDRASH TAHAROS ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD YEMIN INC ↗
- Who funds AGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF YAD NAFTALI ↗
- Who funds DONORS FUND INC ↗
- Who funds US FRIENDS OF YAD EZRAH INC ↗
- Who funds METROPOLITAN NEW YORK COORDINATING COUNCIL ON JEWISH POVERTY ↗
- Who funds Ohr Torah Stone Institutions of Israel ↗
- Who funds Bonei Olam 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: The Ojc Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Donors Fund Inc · Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore · Malchus Foundation · National Society for Hebrew Day Schools · Zichron Yechiel Mechel Foundation · The Jmg Foundation · Toras Chesed Inc · The Zev and Susan Munk Family Foundation
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 Murray & Sydell Rosenberg Foundationinc 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Life Crisis Center Inc — 24% of income from government
- Yeshiva Shagas Aryeh Inc — 9% of income from government
- Bais Tova Inc — 7% of income from government
- Yeshiva Orchos Chaim Inc — 5% of income from government
- The Special Children Center — 5% of income from government
- Mesorah Heritage Foundation — 1% of income from government
- The Aleph Institute Inc — 0% 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 Murray & Sydell Rosenberg Foundationinc?
Find your warmest path to Murray & Sydell Rosenberg Foundationinc 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.