Skip to content

· Private foundation

Rovna Ct Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$87k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$87k
Largest
01What it funds
0148% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Religion$99kArts & Culture$5kHealth$4kFood & Nutrition$2kPhilanthropy$1kHuman Services$922Crime & Legal$850Public Benefit$522Other$0
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$86,825
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Miscellaneous Charity$86,825
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 (FY17–22, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 83% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%ORAH: $500 → 11%bonei olam: $236 → 20%Tzedukas Huir: $2k → 14%Tzedukas Huir: $180 → 14%TZEDUKAS HUIR: $50 → 14%misaskim: $100 → 20%Bonei Olam: $108 → 20%ashreinu Inc: $50 → 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.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$402k · 52 repeat orgs$124k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +91% since the first grant, against +32% for those funded once.

52 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 51 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

52
242

Total granted

$402k
$124k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+91%
+32%

Still filing today

13%
4%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesReligionHealthPhilanthropyPublic BenefitOther
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

  • TH
    TZEDUKAS HUIR INC
    3× · 2017–2019 · $2k · revenue +26%
  • CL
    CHAI LIFELINE INC
    5× · 2017–2022 · $2k · revenue +58%
  • KN
    KAREN NSEYIN KJ INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $1k · revenue +211%

Funded once

  • U
    UTA
    one grant, 2022 · $11k
  • CS
    CONG SHAREI EZRA INC
    one grant, 2021 · $10k
  • YL
    Yitav Lav D'eretz Yisroel
    one grant, 2020 · $9k
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
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
2
Ezreinu Inc
Health
3
Keren Avraham Shmuel Inc Wachman
Philanthropy
4
Mishken Chaim Rivnits

Assistance to the indigent

Religion
5
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
6
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
7
Keren Torah Vchesed

Keren torah vchesed inc. is the american fundraising arm of irgun hesh hatorah an established israeli religious organization that maintains religious centers for worship and torah study and alleeviates poverty in israel

International
8
Zera Koidesh Inc

To award financial grants to religios orthodox jewish organizations and to help by financial means, the needy, sick and disabled people.

—
9
Avodat Avraham Inc
Religion
10
Keren Ateres Yitzchok Trust
Philanthropy
11
The Keren Rachaim Fund
—
12
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tzedukas Huir Inc; the most unlike its peers is Keren Torah Vchesed. 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

19 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. 19 of the 294 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/19
Grantees still filing
16/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Miscellaneous Charity: $290,989 · OtherMiscellaneous CharityIndividual grant recipient: $20,252 · Other+187 more: $200,521 · Other+187 moreKAREN NSEYIN KJ INC: $1,400 · ReligionKEREN MELAMDIM DSATMAR INC: $1,200 · ReligionYAAZORU INC: $720 · ReligionTALMUD TORAH BRESLOV INC: $150 · ReligionTZEDUKAS HUIR INC: $2,030 · Human ServicesOORAH INC: $500 · Human ServicesBonei Olam Inc: $344 · Human ServicesCHAI LIFELINE INC: $1,892 · HealthREFUAH HELPLINE INCDBA REFUAH RESOURCES: $192 · HealthVYAZREIM INC: $522 · Public BenefitYETEV LEV INC: $420 · Philanthropy
Other$511,762Religion$3,470Human Services$2,874Health$2,084Public Benefit$522Philanthropy$420

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTZEDUKAS HUIR INC: $2,030 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $1,892 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetKAREN NSEYIN KJ INC: $1,400 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetKEREN MELAMDIM DSATMAR INC: $1,200 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetYAAZORU INC: $720 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetOHR BACHOSHECH INC: $600 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetVYAZREIM INC: $522 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOORAH INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBonei Olam Inc: $344 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTZEDEK ASSOCIATION: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetREFUAH HELPLINE INCDBA REFUAH RESOURCES: $192 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTALMUD TORAH BRESLOV INC: $150 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 TZEDUKAS HUIR INC ↗
  • Who funds CHAI LIFELINE INC ↗
  • Who funds KAREN NSEYIN KJ INC ↗

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.

The Lexicon Foundation IncNY67.2× affinity30 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Lexicon Foundation Inc · The Ojc Fund · Madanim Foundation · Bochner Foundation · Blum Foundation · Zelig and Rifky Weiss Family Foundation Inc · R' Shaya Ben Moshe Foundation · The Schwartz Charitable Foundation Inc · Tyrnauer Family Foundation · A&E Hauer Family Foundation · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Yr 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 Rovna Ct Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rovna Ct Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
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 →median 0%
  • Oorah Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get 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 · 0–5%
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 294 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Rovna Ct’s filings →

More from the funding graph