Skip to content

· Private foundation

Oberfeld Charitable Foundation Inc

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.

$51k
Granted FY2024still arriving
12
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$30k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Religion$128kInternational$60kEnvironment$35kHealth$15kArts & Culture$15kHuman Services$5kHousing & Shelter$2kYouth Development$1kOther$0
02FY2024 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k10 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $42k
$500
Median grant
3
States reached
$481k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES$30,000
SINAI TEMPLE$11,555
LA PHILHARMONIC ASSOCIATION$4,500
CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER$2,000
NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY$500
MASORTI FOUNDATION FOR CONSERVATIVE$500
THE SALVATION ARMY$500
UNION RESCUE MISSION$500
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM$500
LOS ANGELES JEWISH SYMPHONY$250
ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE RESEARCH$200
UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM$200
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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–24, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%UNION RESCUE MISSION: $500 → 14%ANGEL CITY ALLIANCE: $250 → 14%THE PEOPLE CONCERN: $1k → 14%ROSIE'S FOUNDATION: $180 → 14%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 26% of Oberfeld Charitable Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Oberfeld Charitable Foundation Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 22% 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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$221k · 16 repeat orgs$42k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +29% since the first grant, against +9% for those funded once.

16 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
11

Total granted

$221k
$41k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+29%
+9%

Still filing today

50%
55%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $700 went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesInternationalHealthCommunity ImprovementPhilanthropyAnimalsOther
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

  • CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER
    5× · 2020–2024 · $10k · revenue +55%
  • LA
    LOS ANGELES JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGING
    2× · 2020–2021 · $2k · revenue +29%
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM
    4× · 2020–2024 · $2k · revenue +198%

Funded once

  • REWILD
    one grant, 2022 · $35k · revenue +18%
  • LJ
    LAWRENCE J ELLISON INSTITUTE OF USC
    one grant, 2020 · $2k
  • HO
    HEART OF LOS ANGELES YOUTH INC
    one grant, 2022 · $1k · revenue -31%
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
Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute

Sanford burnham prebys medical discovery institute's mission is to advance the biomedical sciences by cultivating the next generation of scientific leaders, providing meaningful opportunities for researchers of all backgrounds to learn,…

Health
2
Doheny Eye Institute

To further the conservation, improvement and restoration of human eyesight" (mrs. doheny - 1947).

—
3
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc

The mission of dfci is to provide expert, compassionate, and equitable care to children, adults, and their families, while advancing the understanding, diagnosis, treatment, cure, and prevention of cancer and related diseases. we train new…

Health
4
Targeting Resistance in Cancer Cooperative
Health
5
University of Southern California

The central mission of the university of southern california is the development of human beings and society as a whole through the cultivation and enrichment of the human mind and spirit. the principal means by which our mission is…

Education
6
Hadassah the Women's Zionist Org of America Inc

Hadassah, the women's zionist organization of america, inc., a new york not-for-profit corporation ("hwzoa") enhances the health and lives of people in israel, the united states and worldwide through education, advocacy, women's…

Community Improvement
7
Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles

Jfsla's mission is to provide life-improving services that help the people of los angeles live with dignity and exercise self-determination. we believe in and strive for a more compassionate los angeles where no one has to navigate life…

Human Services
8
Jaeb Center for Health Research Foundation Inc

Our mission is to expand scientific knowledge and improve public health by designing and conducting world-class clinical trials and epidemiologic research.

Unclassified
9
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
10
Pasadena Hospital Association Ltd

Huntington Health stands for community. We stand for compassion. But more than anything, Huntington stands for health. Providing world-class health care is our specialty, and it's what we've been doing for the San Gabriel Valley since…

Health
11
Diabetes Research Institute Foundation Inc

To provide the diabetes research institute with the funding to cure diabetes now.

Health
12
Sherit Isroel
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Angel City Alliance; the most unlike its peers is The Cardiovascular Medical Research and Education Fund Inc. 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

15 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. 15 of the 29 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)
15/15
Grantees still filing
11/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JEWISH FEDERATION: $71,000 · OtherJEWISH FEDERATIONSINAI TEMPLE: $50,310 · OtherSINAI TEMPLELA PHILHARMONIC ASSOCIATION: $12,500 · OtherLA PHILHARMONIC ASSOCIATION+14 more: $17,045 · Other+14 moreFRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: $56,800 · InternationalFRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFE…+2 more: $3,500 · International+2 moreREWILD: $35,000 · AnimalsREWILDCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $9,500 · HealthNATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY: $2,000 · HealthLOS ANGELES JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGING: $2,000 · Community ImprovementTHE PEOPLE CONCERN: $1,000 · Human ServicesUNION RESCUE MISSION: $500 · Human ServicesAngel City Alliance: $250 · Human ServicesRosies Foundation CO GLENN ZARAGOZA: $180 · Human ServicesHIRSHBERG FOUNDATION FOR PANCREATIC CANC: $1,000 · Philanthropy
Other$150,855International$60,300Animals$35,000Health$11,500Community Improvement$2,000Human Services$1,930Philanthropy$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 budgetFRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: $56,800 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetREWILD: $35,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $9,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetLOS ANGELES JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGING: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM: $2,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY: $2,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetBIRTHRIGHT ISRAEL FOUNDATION: $1,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHIRSHBERG FOUNDATION FOR PANCREATIC CANC: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLOS ANGELES JEWISH SYMPHONY: $1,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetHEART OF LOS ANGELES YOUTH INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE PEOPLE CONCERN: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FUND INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNION RESCUE MISSION: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAngel City Alliance: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRosies Foundation CO GLENN ZARAGOZA: $180 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.

  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES ↗
  • Who funds REWILD ↗
  • Who funds CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ↗
  • Who funds LOS ANGELES JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGING ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds BIRTHRIGHT ISRAEL FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds HIRSHBERG FOUNDATION FOR PANCREATIC CANC ↗
  • Who funds LOS ANGELES JEWISH SYMPHONY ↗
  • Who funds HEART OF LOS ANGELES YOUTH INC ↗
  • Who funds THE PEOPLE CONCERN ↗
  • Who funds THE CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds UNION RESCUE MISSION ↗
  • Who funds Angel City Alliance ↗
  • Who funds Rosies Foundation CO GLENN ZARAGOZA ↗

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.

California Community FoundationCA12.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: California Community Foundation · 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 Oberfeld Charitable Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Oberfeld Charitable Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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
    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 · 0–5%
    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 29 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Oberfeld’s filings →

    More from the funding graph