· Public charity
Oren and Sharron Steinfeldt Foundation
Supporting organization to the minneapolis jewish federation and other jewish community organizations
Read this first · the figures below need context
100% of Oren and Sharron Steinfeldt Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Minneapolis Jewish Federation, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2023, the last year Oren and Sharron Steinfeldt Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 8 organizations, $610k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 9 grants below total $610,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $622,500 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $12,500 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2023
- $10k–50k7 grants · $180k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $160k
- $250k+1 grant · $270k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| TEMPLE ISRAEL FOUNDATION | $270,000 |
| MINNEAPOLIS JEWISH FEDERATION | $160,000 |
| MINNESOTA JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER | $45,000 |
| JEWISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF THE UPPER MIDWEST INC | $30,000 |
| JEWISH FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICE OF MINNEAPOLIS | $25,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN (MN) SECTION | $25,000 |
| JEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL OF MINNESOTA & THE DAKOTAS | $15,000 |
| SHOLOM FOUNDATION | $15,000 |
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 human-services grants (FY17–23, $921k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% 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.
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.
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 +86% since the first grant, against -15% for the ones you funded once.
10 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2023, 2 since wound down. Read against FY2023, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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 FY2023, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- TITEMPLE ISRAEL FOUNDATION5× · 2019–2023 · $810k · revenue +164% · 50% of their budget
- SFSHOLOM FOUNDATION7× · 2017–2023 · $360k · revenue +86%
- MJMINNESOTA JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER6× · 2017–2023 · $219k · revenue +147%
Funded once
- MHMINNESOTA HILLELone grant, 2019 · $103k · revenue -15%
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.
Jewish historical society of michigan shares and celebrates the experiences and contributions of the jewish people, communities and institutions of michigan.
The jewish fund is organized and operates exclusively for charitable, educational, and religious purposes. the fund's primary activities are: supporting a jewish health care mission in the greater detroit area and michigan; promotion of…
The mission of the jewish museum is to collect, preserve, exhibit and interpret art and jewish culture. see schedule o for more information.
To further the welfare of the jewish community
Together with our community, jcc manhattan creates opportunities for people to connect, grow, and learn within an ever-changing jewish landscape.
The jewish community relations council (jcrc) works within the jewish and broader communities in st. louis to enhance cooperation with other religious, racial, ethnic and civic groups; foster a just, democratic and pluralistic society; and…
To further jewish historical education among youths
Jewish community action's mission is to organize minnesota jews on key issues impacting our families and neighbors, including religious freedom, affordable housing and public safety.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Minnesota Jewish Community Center Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 of the 12 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
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 MINNEAPOLIS JEWISH FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds TEMPLE ISRAEL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MINNESOTA JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SHOLOM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MINNESOTA JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
- Who funds JEWISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF THE UPPER MIDWEST ↗
- Who funds JEWISH FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICE OF MINNEAPOLIS ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN MINNESOTA (MN) SECTION ↗
- Who funds MINNESOTA HILLEL ↗
- Who funds JEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL OF MINNESOTA AND THE DAKOTAS ↗
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 Minneapolis Foundation · Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation · The Rum Fund · Beryl and Florence Miller Family Foundation · Lynne & Andrew Redleaf Foundation · Mike & Linda Fiterman Family Foundation · Baird Foundation Inc · The Richard & Rossy Shaller Family Foundation · Alex G & Mollie Tankenoff Family Foundation · Marshall & Elaine Siegel Foundation · Robert and Susan Diamond Foundation · Weiser 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 Oren and Sharron Steinfeldt Foundation 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 Oren and Sharron Steinfeldt Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Oren and Sharron Steinfeldt 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.