Skip to content
Seymor & Pearl Greenstein Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Seymor & Pearl Greenstein 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.

$108k
Granted FY2025still arriving
29
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$19k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Religion$631kHealth$120kFood & Nutrition$116kEducation$74kHuman Services$48kPhilanthropy$19kHousing & Shelter$6kPublic Safety & Disaster$4kOther$0
02FY2025 · 29 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k26 grants · $65k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $43k
$1,500
Median grant
6
States reached
$923k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$18,900
KOLLEL INSTITUTE--charity fund$13,600
Individual grant recipient$10,000
TZEDEKAH ENHANCEMENT PROJECT$9,200
KOLLEL INSTITUTE$6,360
Misc under 500$5,889
JCS Kosher Food Bank$5,500
Aventura Shul$5,320
Yad EZRA$5,100
Hatzalah of Michign$3,600
FREE$3,500
Mesifta of Cincinnati$3,000
Ahavas Yisroel Charity Fund$2,500
Jewish Resource Center$2,000
Hatzalah of S Florida$1,500
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 (FY17–25, $143k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 12% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%BONEI OLAM: $6k → 20%BONEI OLAM: $2k → 20%BONEI OLAM: $1k → 20%BETH OLOTH: $500 → 20%BONEI OLAM: $1k → 20%BETH OLOTH: $500 → 20%BONEI OLAM: $1k → 20%BETH OLOTH: $500 → 20%BONEI OLAM: $1k → 20%BETH OLOTH: $500 → 20%BONEI OLAM: $1k → 20%BONEI OLAM: $1k → 20%BETH OLOTH: $500 → 20%BONEI OLAM: $1k → 20%DETROIT CHESSED PROJECT: $20k → 8%DETROIT CHESSED PROJECT: $5k → 8%DETROIT CHESSED PROJECT: $5k → 8%DETROIT CHESSED PROJECT: $1k → 8%JARC: $19k → 8%JARC: $18k → 8%JARC: $18k → 8%JARC: $13k → 8%JARC: $9k → 8%JARC: $8k → 8%JARC: $5k → 8%JARC: $5k → 8%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WI
MI
NY
OH
NJ
MO
MD
FL
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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$925k · 40 repeat orgs$96k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +44% since the first grant, against -3% for those funded once.

40 repeat relationships: 14 still active in FY2025, 26 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

40
17

Total granted

$925k
$23k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+44%
-3%

Still filing today

33%
6%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 32% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $73k 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 ServicesEducationHealthPublic Safety & DisasterFood & NutritionReligionOther
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

  • YE
    YAD EZRA
    9× · 2017–2025 · $46k · revenue +42%
  • DC
    DETROIT CHESED PROJECT
    4× · 2018–2021 · $31k · revenue +384%
  • BO
    Bonei Olam Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $15k · revenue +224%

Funded once

  • YH
    YESHIVAT HEATID INC
    one grant, 2024 · $3k · revenue -3%
  • TC
    Tennafly Chabad Academy
    one grant, 2024 · $3k
  • FH
    FARBER HEBREW DAY SCHOOL-YESHIVAL AKIVA
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
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
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
2
Ohr Yisrael Yeshiva Inc

Ohr Yisrael is a religious institution that provides religious services and instruction to Rabbis and community members.

Religion
3
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
4
Hebrew Orphan Society
—
5
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

—
6
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
7
Shaarei Halacha Inc
Philanthropy
8
Sherit Isroel
—
9
Chabad Lametayel Inc

encourage and facilitate the observance of traditional orthodox Jewish practices around the world.

—
10
University of Judaism Foundation
—
11
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
12
Ohr Olam Corp

publish religious books

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Family Service; the most unlike its peers is Missouri Torah Institute. 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

16 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. 16 of the 73 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
12/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONGREGATION SHOMREI EMUNAH: $173,010 · OtherCONGREGATION SHOMREI EMUNAHKOLLEL INSTITUTE: $116,270 · OtherKOLLEL INSTITUTEIndividual grant recipient: $102,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientJCS KOSHER FOOD BANK: $61,880 · OtherJCS KOSHER FOOD BANKTZEDAKA ENHANCEMENT PROJECT: $45,748 · OtherTZEDAKA ENHANCEMENT PROJECTYAD EZRA: $45,660 · OtherYAD EZRAAVENTURA SHUL CORP: $35,160 · OtherVARIOUS CHARITIES UNDER 500: $33,901 · Other+51 more: $215,359 · Other+51 moreJARC: $94,920 · Human ServicesJARCDETROIT CHESED PROJECT: $31,000 · Human ServicesDETROIT CHESED P…Bonei Olam Inc: $15,000 · Human ServicesBonei Olam IncJEWISH FAMILY SERVICE: $5,000 · Human Services+1 more: $2,500 · Human ServicesMISSOURI TORAH INSTITUTE: $4,000 · EducationCINCINNATI HEBREW DAY SCHOOL INC: $3,750 · EducationYESHIVAT HEATID INC: $3,260 · EducationTHE JEWISH DENTAL CLINIC: $10,300 · HealthTOMCHEI SHABBOS OF FLORIDA: $7,700 · Food & NutritionJEWISH RESOURCE CENTER: $7,000 · ReligionLEV LALEV INC: $3,615 · PhilanthropyGREATER MIAMI JEWISH FEDERATION INC: $2,000 · PhilanthropyHATZALAH OF MICHIGAN: $3,600 · Public Safety & Disaster
Other$828,988Human Services$148,420Education$11,010Health$10,300Food & Nutrition$7,700Religion$7,000Philanthropy$5,615Public Safety & Disaster$3,600

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 budgetJARC: $94,920 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetYAD EZRA: $45,660 over 9y, 0.4% of budgetDETROIT CHESED PROJECT: $31,000 over 4y, 2.9% of budgetBonei Olam Inc: $15,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetTHE JEWISH DENTAL CLINIC: $10,300 over 8y, 3.8% of budgetTOMCHEI SHABBOS OF FLORIDA: $7,700 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetJEWISH RESOURCE CENTER: $7,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetKADIMA: $5,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetJEWISH FAMILY SERVICE: $5,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMISSOURI TORAH INSTITUTE: $4,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCINCINNATI HEBREW DAY SCHOOL INC: $3,750 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetLEV LALEV INC: $3,615 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetYESHIVAT HEATID INC: $3,260 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBETH OLOTH: $2,500 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetGREATER MIAMI JEWISH FEDERATION INC: $2,000 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 JARC ↗
  • Who funds YAD EZRA ↗
  • Who funds DETROIT CHESED PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds Bonei Olam Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE JEWISH DENTAL CLINIC ↗
  • Who funds TOMCHEI SHABBOS OF FLORIDA ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds KADIMA ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE ↗
  • Who funds MISSOURI TORAH INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds CINCINNATI HEBREW DAY SCHOOL INC ↗
  • Who funds LEV LALEV INC ↗
  • Who funds HATZALAH OF MICHIGAN ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVAT HEATID 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.

Ahavas Avraham Founda…Borsand Family Founda…Edward and Norma Jean…The Meer Family Found…David Kahan Family Fo…United Jewish Foundat…Jewish Communal FundAlex Saltsman Family …Shari & Alon Friendsh…The Jerold and Ellen …Pappas Foundation IncHarold and Penny B Bl…
Ahavas Avraham FoundationMI22× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Ahavas Avraham Foundation · Borsand Family Foundation Inc · Edward and Norma Jean Meer Charitable Foundation · The Meer Family Foundation · David Kahan Family Foundation · United Jewish Foundation · Jewish Communal Fund · Alex Saltsman Family Foundation · Shari & Alon Friendship Foundation Inc · The Jerold and Ellen Minkin Family Foundation · Pappas Foundation Inc · Harold and Penny B Blumenstein Foundation Corporation

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 Seymor & Pearl Greenstein Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Seymor & Pearl Greenstein Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    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 73 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 Seymor & Pearl Greenstein’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