· Private foundation
Rostrust Foundation
Its FY2026 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
Read this first · the figures below need context
84% of Rostrust Foundation’s FY2026 grant dollars went to The Donors Fund, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2026 names 2 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2020, the last year Rostrust Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 7 organizations, $755k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
By grant size · FY2020
- Under $10k8 grants · $28k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $65k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $662k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CONG TALMUD TORAH TASHBAR NACHLAS | $215,000 |
| THE DONOR FUND | $185,000 |
| CONGREGATION SANZ OF LAKEWOOD | $162,000 |
| CONGREGATION SHAAREI CHESED | $100,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $19,000 |
| YESHIVAH BETH YEHUDAH | $18,000 |
| TALMUD TORAH DARKEI AVOS MONSEY | $15,660 |
| LEARNING INSTITUTE OF UNION CITY | $12,000 |
| CONGREGATION BETH HALEVY | $9,113 |
| MOSDOS SANZ OF MONSEY | $5,000 |
| BETH ROCHEL SCHOOL | $4,300 |
| CONGREGATION SHEFA CHAIM | $3,800 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,500 |
| KHAL OHELEI SHEM OF NITRA | $2,000 |
| K'HAL AHAVAS SHALOM | $1,000 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
Its human-services grants (FY17–17, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
How this is measured
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +263% since the first grant, against +1% for those funded once.
28 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2020, 17 since wound down; 27 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call). Read against FY2020, 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 FY2026, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $85k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- CSCONGREGATION SANZ OF LAKEWOOD8× · 2017–2026 · $987k
- SISANZ INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL4× · 2017–2021 · $563k
- CTCONG TALMUD TORAH TASHBAR NACHLAS2× · 2020–2021 · $315k
Funded once
- CDCONGREGATION DARKEI AVOS SANZ INCone grant, 2018 · $107k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2018 · $57k
- SASIFREI ALGAZIone grant, 2017 · $50k
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.
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.
Religious Teaching
Raise funds for charitable purposes
publish religious books
How this is measured
10 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 10 of the 136 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.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
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.
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.
Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Icu Foundation Inc · Zichron Simcha Dsassov · Chayim V Chesed · Donors Fund Inc · Rockstone · Zichron Chaim Charity Fund · American Committee for Sanz Institutions in Israel Inc · Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation · Friends of Mosdot Goor · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization Rostrust Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rostrust Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.
- Mesorah Heritage Foundation: 1% of income from government
How this is measured
Play a game based on Rostrust’s filings →