Skip to content
Sylvia Ziontz Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Sylvia Ziontz Foundation

Its FY2022 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$205k
Granted FY2022
4
Grants FY2022
2
States reached
$100k
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 2022.

Health$215kHuman Services$215kPhilanthropy$30kEmployment$15kArts & Culture$10k
02FY2022 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $55k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $150k
$50,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ISRAEL CANCER RESEARCH FUND$100,000
HEPHZIBAH CHILDREN'S ASSOCIATION$50,000
Individual grant recipient$30,000
CANCER WELLNESS CENTER$25,000
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 (FY17–19, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 80% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF CHICAGOLAND & NW INDIANA: $5k → 7%BEVERLY FARM FOUNDATION: $5k → 12%BEVERLY FARM FOUNDATION: $200 → 12%GREAT POTENTIALS INC: $15k → 14%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.

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$395k · 4 repeat orgs$90k to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2022, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
4

Total granted

$395k
$35k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+27%
+63%

Still filing today

100%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 73% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $55k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22
Human ServicesHealthOther
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

  • HC
    HEPHZIBAH CHILDREN'S ASSOCIATION
    5× · 2018–2022 · $210k · revenue +43%
  • IC
    ISRAEL CANCER RESEARCH FUND INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $150k · revenue +27%
  • BF
    BEVERLY FARM FOUNDATION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $5k · revenue +21%

Funded once

  • GP
    GREAT POTENTIALS INC
    one grant, 2019 · $15k · revenue +63%
  • M
    MOMENTA
    one grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue +2%
  • SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDRENgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue +94%
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
Hebrew Health Care Inc

The mission of hebrew health care is to provide highly personalized quality programs and services to the seniors of our community. we assure dignified, informed, quality care to all regardless of source of payment for services. (see…

Health
2
Curesearch for Children's Cancer

Curesearch's mission is to fund & support targeted & innovative cancer research with measurable results, & to be the authoritative source of information & resources for all those affected by children's cancer. see schedule o for…

Health
3
Children's Healthcare of Atlanta Inc

To make kids better today and healthier tomorrow.

Health
4
Samuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation

The samuel waxman cancer research foundation (the "foundation") funds innovative research to bring faster cures to patients. in addition to supporting ongoing collaborative research in specific cancers, our scientists are investigating the…

—
5
The Skin Cancer Foundation Inc

Public and medical education and research

—
6
Advanced Medical Research Foundation Incd/B/a Nile Albright Research Fdn

The corporation is organized,and shall be operated, exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, and to carry out the purposes of, one or more charitable organizations that promote the advancement of medicine, engage in…

Health
7
Chaim Medical Resource Inc

The organization provides support to individuals and families facing the devastating effects of medical crises. they primarily assist with medical referral and guidance services at no cost to the patient, and guide them through the maze of…

Human Services
8
Beth Israel Medical Center

Since its founding, over 120 years ago, as a medical dispensary to meet the needs of the impoverished and underserved jewish community of the lower east side, beth israel medical center has been committed to the care of persons of all…

Health
9
Childrens Cancer Therapy Development Institute

To make all childhood cancers universally survivable by delivering new treatments to clinical trials through scientific discovery.

—
10
Childrens Oncology Services Inc

Camp one step by children's oncology services is a leader in providing empowering, supportive, educational, and fun experiences for children (ages birth-19) who have been diagnosed with cancer and their families. we are the only local…

Health
11
Children's Miracle Network

Children's miracle network (dba "children's miracle network hospitals") works to save kids' lives by bringing people together to raise money for children's healthcare in local communities.

Unclassified
12
Ross K Macneill Foundation

End pediatric brain cancer by raising money for research and raising awareness for the diagnosis. our research investments focus on innovative non-toxic therapy development for children.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hephzibah Children's Association; the most unlike its peers is Kids in Danger. 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

9 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. 9 of the 10 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)
8/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HEPHZIBAH CHILDREN'S ASSOCIATION: $210,000 · OtherHEPHZIBAH CHILDREN'S ASSOCIATIONISRAEL CANCER RESEARCH FUND INC: $150,000 · OtherISRAEL CANCER RESEARCH FUND INCKids In Danger: $30,000 · OtherKids In DangerIndividual grant recipient: $30,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient+1 more: $10,000 · OtherCANCER WELLNESS CENTER: $25,000 · HealthSHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $5,000 · HealthGREAT POTENTIALS INC: $15,000 · Human ServicesBEVERLY FARM FOUNDATION: $5,200 · Human ServicesRONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF CHICAGOLAND & NW INDIANA: $5,000 · Human Services
Other$430,000Health$30,000Human Services$25,200

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 budgetHEPHZIBAH CHILDREN'S ASSOCIATION: $210,000 over 5y, 0.6% of budgetISRAEL CANCER RESEARCH FUND INC: $150,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetKids In Danger: $30,000 over 2y, 12% of budgetCANCER WELLNESS CENTER: $25,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetMOMENTA: $10,000 over 1y, 4.9% of budgetBEVERLY FARM FOUNDATION: $5,200 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF CHICAGOLAND & NW INDIANA: $5,000 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.

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA3.2× affinity5 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Amazonsmile 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 Sylvia Ziontz Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Sylvia Ziontz Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Shriners Hospitals for Children: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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 10 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Sylvia Ziontz’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