Skip to content
Rmp Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Rmp Charitable Foundation

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.

$201k
Granted FY2024still arriving
23
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$40k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0179% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$685kInternational$182kHuman Services$68kHealth$48kCivil Rights$25kPhilanthropy$9kPublic Benefit$5kCommunity Improvement$4kOther$0
02FY2024 · 23 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k17 grants · $38k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $163k
$2,500
Median grant
3
States reached
$6.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CAMP HASC$40,000
CONGREGATION SHAAREI TEFILA$35,000
BAIS YEHUDA SHALOM$25,000
TOMCHEI SHABBOS OF LOS ANGELES$22,700
CHABAD TERROR VICTIMS PROJECT$20,000
Individual grant recipient$20,000
AZAMRAH$6,500
CONGREGATION BNAI ISRAEL OF EAST MIDWOOD$5,000
PUAH$5,000
Individual grant recipient$3,600
Individual grant recipient$3,500
EZER MIZION$2,500
Individual grant recipient$2,400
ONE ISRAEL FUND$1,800
CONGREGATION BNEI TORAH$1,800
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 (FY20–24, $52k) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 99% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%BONEI OLAM: $21k → 20%KEREN HATZEDAKA: $500 → 11%MISASKIM: $10k → 20%MARBEH TZEDAKAH: $5k → 14%BONEH OLAM: $10k → 20%MISASKIN: $5k → 20%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.

57%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$609k · 14 repeat orgs$468k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +48% since the first grant, against -33% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 12 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
45

Total granted

$609k
$404k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+48%
-33%

Still filing today

50%
22%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $63k 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
InternationalHuman ServicesPhilanthropyReligionFood & NutritionCrime & LegalOther
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

  • CH
    CAMP HASC INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $200k · revenue +48%
  • BO
    Bonei Olam Inc
    2× · 2020–2023 · $31k · revenue +77%
  • MC
    MISASKIM CORP
    2× · 2020–2023 · $15k · revenue +46%

Funded once

  • GC
    GEMILOS CHASODIM CHASDEI MOSHE
    one grant, 2023 · $50k
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MESHI INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $30k · revenue +37%
  • AF
    AMER FRIENDS OF MESHI
    one grant, 2020 · $25k
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
Sherit Isroel
—
2
The Keren Rachaim Fund
—
3
Israel Medical Fund Corp

To provide guidance and support to families with ill or physically disabled family members

Human Services
4
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
5
Israel Select Charity Fund Inc

Helping individuals and organizations with great needs and little resources and with often few options.

Human Services
6
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
7
Zicron Eliyahu Inc
—
8
Idf Memorial Foundation
Philanthropy
9
Tzevet Hatzolah Emergency Response

Ensure that every segment of israeli society is protected from terrorism and is well equipped to respond to life threatening emergencies

Public Safety & Disaster
10
Zichroin Rabbeini Meshilem Feiish Ztl Foundation
—
11
Zichron Chaim Avraham Foundation
Philanthropy
12
Zichron Moshe Elihu Tzedoka Fund
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is One Israel Fund Ltd; the most unlike its peers is Smile Train Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

22 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. 22 of the 72 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/22
Grantees still filing
10/22
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONGREGATION SHAAREI TEFILA: $187,000 · OtherCONGREGATION SHAAREI TEFILAIndividual grant recipient: $70,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientGEMILOS CHASODIM CHASDEI MOSHE: $50,000 · OtherGEMILOS CHASODIM CHASDEI MOSHETOMCHEI SHABBOS OF LOS ANGELES: $32,700 · OtherAMER FRIENDS OF MESHI: $25,000 · OtherBAIS YEHUDA SHALOM INC: $25,000 · Other+50 more: $355,279 · Other+50 moreCAMP HASC INC: $200,000 · ReligionCAMP HASC INCPEF ISRAEL ENDOWMENT FUNDS INC: $110,000 · PhilanthropyPEF ISRAEL EN…AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MESHI INC: $30,000 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN FRIE…+1 more: $360 · PhilanthropyBonei Olam Inc: $31,000 · Human ServicesMISASKIM CORP: $15,000 · Human ServicesMARBEH TZEDAKAH: $5,000 · Human Services+1 more: $500 · Human ServicesChabad Terror Victims Project Inc: $20,000 · InternationalEZER MIZION: $6,000 · InternationalFRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: $3,000 · InternationalAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM: $2,500 · InternationalGush Etzion Foundation % Juliette Landesman: $1,800 · InternationalONE ISRAEL FUND LTD: $1,800 · InternationalTHE ALEPH INSTITUTE INC: $10,000 · Crime & LegalCHAYAL EL CHAYAL INC: $5,000 · Public Benefit
Other$744,979Religion$200,000Philanthropy$140,360Human Services$51,500International$35,100Crime & Legal$10,000Public Benefit$5,000

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 budgetCAMP HASC INC: $200,000 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetPEF ISRAEL ENDOWMENT FUNDS INC: $110,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetBonei Olam Inc: $31,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MESHI INC: $30,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetChabad Terror Victims Project Inc: $20,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetMISASKIM CORP: $15,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetAZAMRAH INC: $12,500 over 2y, 8.6% of budgetTHE ALEPH INSTITUTE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetShelters for Israel: $10,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetNeros Lehoir: $10,000 over 1y, 7.1% of budgetEZER MIZION: $6,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetMARBEH TZEDAKAH: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCHAYAL EL CHAYAL INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSHARE OF NEW SQUARE INC DBA CHESED 247: $3,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF UNITED HATZALAH INC: $2,750 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGush Etzion Foundation % Juliette Landesman: $1,800 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetONE ISRAEL FUND LTD: $1,800 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSMILE TRAIN INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKEREN HATZEDAKA INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetROFEH CHOLIM CANCER SOCIETY INC: $360 over 1y, 0.0% 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 CAMP HASC INC ↗
  • Who funds PEF ISRAEL ENDOWMENT FUNDS INC ↗
  • Who funds Bonei Olam Inc ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MESHI INC ↗
  • Who funds Chabad Terror Victims Project Inc ↗
  • Who funds MISASKIM CORP ↗
  • Who funds AZAMRAH INC ↗
  • Who funds THE ALEPH INSTITUTE INC ↗
  • Who funds Shelters for Israel ↗
  • Who funds Neros Lehoir ↗
  • Who funds EZER MIZION ↗
  • Who funds MARBEH TZEDAKAH ↗

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.

Jewish Communal FundThe Ojc FundAssociated Jewish Cha…Jewish Community Foun…Gs Donor Advised Phil…Goldner Family Founda…Alyad Foundation IncJack Adjmi Family Fou…Morgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…National Philanthropi…American Endowment Fo…
Jewish Communal FundNY23.1× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · The Ojc Fund · Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Goldner Family Foundation Inc · Alyad Foundation Inc · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · American Endowment 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 Rmp Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rmp Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 30%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • The Aleph Institute Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get 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 · 0–10%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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 72 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 Rmp’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home