Skip to content

· Private foundation

Stuart and Judith Rosen 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.

$43k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$40k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Religion$104kPhilanthropy$59kHuman Services$40kArts & Culture$22kInternational$20kCivil Rights$5kCrime & Legal$3kEducation$2kOther$0
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $3k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $40k
$3,018
Median grant
1
States reached
$366k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
QUEENS JEWISH COMMUNITY COUNCIL$40,000
CONGREGATION OF MOUNT MOSES$3,018
HASC$100
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 (FY25–25, $40k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%QUEENS JEWISH COMMUNITY COUNCIL: $40k → 13%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

NY
MA
OR
PA
NJ
CA
KS
TN
DC
GA
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.
04

Where the work is directed

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

About 100% of Stuart and Judith Rosen Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 87% of the giving stays in NY; by stated purpose, 0%.

Stuart and Judith Rosen Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

59%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$152k · 11 repeat orgs$104k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
26

Total granted

$152k
$64k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+8%
+15%

Still filing today

36%
23%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 7% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $40k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
InternationalEducationReligionPhilanthropyCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesOther
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

  • TI
    THE ISRAEL INDEPENDENCE FUND
    3× · 2022–2024 · $55k · revenue +77%
  • ZO
    ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA
    3× · 2021–2023 · $45k · revenue -31%
  • QJ
    QUEENS JEWISH COMM COUNCIL
    2× · 2022–2023 · $24k

Funded once

  • YT
    YIDDISH THEATER
    one grant, 2022 · $21k
  • ME
    MIDDLE EAST FORUM
    one grant, 2021 · $15k · revenue -43%
  • CF
    COMMITTEE FOR ACCURACY IN MIDDLE EAST REPORTING IN AMERICA INCgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue +56%
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
University of Judaism Foundation
—
2
Foundation for Conservative Judiasm of South Florida
—
3
Moskowitz Prize for Zionism Inc
—
4
Voices United for Israel

Educational information regarding Israel and the Middle East.

International
5
Sherit Isroel
—
6
Friends of Institute for Zionist

The organization seeks to reinforce the foundations of israel as a jewish and democratic state. it acts to promote programs to educate the israeli public on the importance of both values and to demonstrate how each contributes to and…

International
7
Eastern European Jewish Heritage Foundation
Philanthropy
8
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
9
The Jerusalem Connection
—
10
The Steinhardt Foundation for Jewish Life Inc
Religion
11
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
12
The Tzedaka Fund
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is David Horowitz Freedom Center; the most unlike its peers is Friends of Station Square Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

12 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. 12 of the 38 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/12
Grantees still filing
6/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

QUEENS JEWISH COMM COUNCIL: $24,109 · OtherQUEENS JEWISH COMM COUNCILYIDDISH THEATER: $20,545 · OtherYIDDISH THEATERHAVURAT YISRAEL: $14,170 · OtherHAVURAT YISRAELCONGREGATION MOUNT MOSES: $11,572 · OtherCONGREGATION MOUNT MOSESCHRISTIAN EMBASSY JEUSALEM USA: $5,000 · OtherDAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER: $5,000 · Other+23 more: $13,611 · Other+23 moreTHE ISRAEL INDEPENDENCE FUND: $55,086 · PhilanthropyTHE ISRAEL INDEPENDENCE …ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA: $44,658 · ReligionZIONIST ORGANIZATIO…+1 more: $280 · ReligionQUEENS JEWISH COMMUNITY COUNCIL: $40,000 · Human ServicesQUEENS JEWISH COM…MIDDLE EAST FORUM: $15,000 · InternationalCOMMITTEE FOR ACCURACY IN MIDDLE EAST REPORTING IN AMERICA INC: $5,000 · InternationalTHE TIKVAH FUND: $500 · EducationYESHIVA UNIVERSITY: $206 · EducationFRIENDS OF STATION SQUARE INC: $500 · Community Improvement
Other$94,007Philanthropy$55,086Religion$44,938Human Services$40,000International$20,000Education$706Community Improvement$500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE ISRAEL INDEPENDENCE FUND: $55,086 over 3y, 10% of budgetZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA: $44,658 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetQUEENS JEWISH COMMUNITY COUNCIL: $40,000 over 1y, 4.9% of budgetMIDDLE EAST FORUM: $15,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCOMMITTEE FOR ACCURACY IN MIDDLE EAST REPORTING IN AMERICA INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLEO BAECK INSTITUTE INC: $850 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE TIKVAH FUND: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF STATION SQUARE INC: $500 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetJEWISH EDUCATION PROGRAM OF QUEENS: $280 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetYESHIVA UNIVERSITY: $206 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 THE ISRAEL INDEPENDENCE FUND ↗
  • Who funds ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA ↗
  • Who funds QUEENS JEWISH COMMUNITY COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds MIDDLE EAST FORUM ↗
  • Who funds COMMITTEE FOR ACCURACY IN MIDDLE EAST REPORTING IN AMERICA INC ↗
  • Who funds DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER ↗
  • Who funds LEO BAECK INSTITUTE INC ↗
  • Who funds THE TIKVAH FUND ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF STATION SQUARE INC ↗
  • Who funds PROJECT VERITAS ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH EDUCATION PROGRAM OF QUEENS ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA UNIVERSITY ↗

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 FundNY15.2× affinity6 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · Eva and Louis Galpern Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Stuart and Judith Rosen Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Stuart and Judith Rosen Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    3report 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, FY20–25
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Stuart and Judith Rosen Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Stuart and Judith Rosen Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 38 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 Stuart and Judith Rosen’s filings →

    More from the funding graph