How much did RICHARD AND RUTH LAVINE grant in FY2024?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 66% of RICHARD AND RUTH LAVINE’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2019

passthroughsave-a-familymentalwell-beingrightsdisabilities

2020

save-a-familyenrichwell-beingmentalfoodhungerdisabilities

2021

well-beingwomenmentalfoodendhungertools

2022

gangmentalfoodhungerrightsadultsdisabilities

2023

younggangwell-beingadultsfoodhungerrights

2024

learningcelebrationssocialclassesoffering varietyjewish valueslives students

2025

hopemusicdefendbuildenrichdemocracystudents

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 37 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k31 grants · $88k
$10k–50k6 grants · $85k

$2,500

Median grant

States reached

$6.0M

Total assets

Largest grants

PLANNED PARENTHOOD$20,000
USC GOULD SCHOOL OF LAW$20,000
ST JOSEPH CENTER$15,000
ANTI DEFAMATION LEAGUE$10,000
UCLA LUSKIN SCHOOL$10,000
LOS ANGELES PHILHARMONIC ASSOCIATION$10,000
WESTSIDE FOOD BANK$5,000
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK$5,000
US AGAINST ALZHEIMER'S$5,000
SABAN COMMUNITY CLINIC$5,000
THE BRENTWOOD SCHOOL$5,000
USC SHOAH FOUNDATION$5,000
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE$5,000
SKIRBALL CULTURAL CENTER$5,000
JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF LOS ANGELES$5,000

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY18–24, $67k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14% — the area typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 5% of RICHARD AND RUTH LAVINE’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.

RICHARD AND RUTH LAVINElessmore of its giving

Placed by recipient address

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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$1.3M · 42 repeat orgs$68k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +125% since the first grant, against +57% for the ones you funded once.

42 repeat relationships — 26 still active in FY2024, 16 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$1.3M

$43k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+125%

+57%

Still filing today

40%

25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Human ServicesArts & CultureEducationHealthPhilanthropyFood & NutritionOther

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

LA
LOS ANGELES PHILHARMONIC ASSOCIATION
7× · 2018–2024 · $80k · revenue +14%
CI
COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS OF LOS ANGELES
7× · 2018–2024 · $78k · revenue +132%
TB
THE BRENTWOOD SCHOOL
6× · 2019–2024 · $66k · revenue +34%

Funded once

TB
THE BRENTWOOD FUND
one grant, 2018 · $12k
UN
UCLA NEUROLOGIC DEPARTMENT - ART OF THE BRAIN
one grant, 2018 · $5k
U
USAGAINSTALZHEIMER'S
one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue +8%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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 Community Foundation of Los Angeles

The foundation is the largest manager of charitable assets and leader in planned giving solutions for greater los angeles jewish philanthropists through its various programs.

Philanthropy

University of Southern California Hillel

To enrich the lives of jewish undergraduate and graduate students so that they may enrich the jewish people and the world.

—

Ucla Alumni Association

The mission of the ucla alumni association is to enrich the lives of alumni and involve them in the future of ucla.

Education

Jewish Federation of Central California

The organizations primary purpose is to raise funds for distribution to jewish charitable agencies and for sick and destitute people thus part ii, column (d) expenses are included in column (b).

Philanthropy

Hillel 818

Hillel 818 is the campus hub for all things Jewish at Cal State Northridge, Pierce College, LA Valley College, and throughout the San Fernando Valley. We empower our 6,000+ Jewish students to forge lasting friendships, grow as leaders,…

—

Hillel of San Luis Obispo

Enriching the lives of Jewish students so they may enrich the Jewish people and the world.

Religion

University of California

To raise and manage private funds to support uci's broader mission of excellence in teaching, research and public service.

Education

Segerstrom Center for the Arts

Developing and operating a major performing arts center presenting the finest in performing arts.

Arts & Culture

Jewish Film Institute

The Jewish Film Institute champions bold films and filmmakers that expand and evolve the Jewish story for audiences everywhere.

Arts & Culture

Inner City Law Center

Fighting for justice and housing by providing legal representation for the homeless and working poor.

Crime & Legal

Jewish Federation Council of Greater La

Based on jewish values, the jewish federation of greater los angeles convenes and leads the community and leverages its resources to assure the continuity of the jewish people, support a secure state of israel, care for jews in need here…

Philanthropy

Los Angeles Opera Company

See part iii and schedule othe los angeles opera company (la opera) is a non-profit entity organized to provide an opportunity for all to enjoy the rich emotional and cultural experience of opera.

Arts & Culture

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is St Joseph Center and the most unlike its peers is International Churchill Society. 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 33 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

4%1/26

the rest of the field

12%

8,468/69,973

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.

06the grantee network

26 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

24/26

Grantees still filing

24/26

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$928,681Arts & Culture$121,500Education$109,250Youth Development$77,500Human Services$67,000Philanthropy$31,000Health$27,500

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.

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.

California Community FoundationCA21.5× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: California Community Foundation · The Unger Family Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund · The Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert · The Rose Hills Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · Weingart Foundation · The Annenberg Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Jewish Communal Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program

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 organisation RICHARD AND RUTH LAVINE 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

1get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: THE BENEFACTORS OF THE JEWISH CLUB OF 1933 INC.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

insufficient risk

Limited financial data in public filings.

Track record & reputation

high risk

4 years of Form 990 filings, no recent filing.

Legal standing

medium risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 951647831 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on THE BENEFACTORS OF THE JEWISH CLUB OF 1933 INC, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
FlagSustained operations— No recent filing on record.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 6% of their budget — diversified.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to Richard and Ruth Lavine?

Find your warmest path to Richard and Ruth Lavine through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

RICHARD AND RUTH LAVINE

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Where the work is directed

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

26 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Richard and Ruth Lavine?

More from the funding graph

RICHARD AND RUTH LAVINE

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Where the work is directed

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

26 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Richard and Ruth Lavine?

More from the funding graph