· Private foundation
Targum Shlishi Inc Aryeh & Raquel Rubin Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 61% of TARGUM SHLISHI INC ARYEH & RAQUEL RUBIN FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k27 grants · $64k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $45k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| HADAR | $25,000 |
| FRIENDS OF ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES | $10,000 |
| ADI ISRAEL FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| PEF ISRAEL ENDOWMENT FUNDS INC | $9,000 |
| ISRAEL EMERGENCY RELIEF FUND | $8,000 |
| OHR TORAH STONE | $6,100 |
| WIZO | $5,000 |
| IAJFNY | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| ISRAELGIVESORG | $5,000 |
| YOUNG ISRAEL OF SUNNY ISLES FLORIDA | $4,200 |
| Individual grant recipient | $3,000 |
| JGIVE - FRIENDS OF ASOR FUND | $2,980 |
| SHUL OF BAL HARBOUR | $2,120 |
| JGIVE - IN SUPPORT OF SINHAT HAZADIK | $1,800 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 85% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +36% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
38 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 31 since wound down; 22 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
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 FY2025, 31% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $69k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- CFCentral Fund of Israel5× · 2017–2024 · $31k · revenue +145%
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF ITIM INC4× · 2018–2022 · $23k · revenue +1%
- KCKBY Congregations Together Inc3× · 2018–2022 · $23k · revenue +504%
Funded once
- JGJJ GREENBERG INSTITUTEone grant, 2020 · $25k
- FFJCone grant, 2018 · $25k
- ACAMER CMTE ADVANCEM TORAH EDU ISRAELone grant, 2018 · $13k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
publish religious books
To further jewish education in israel
To foster jewish religious education and disseminate the teachings of rabbi nachman of breslov through publication and distribution of books and cds, as well as seminars, lectures and study groups.
To promote, benefit, and support Jewish religious, charitable & educational activities in Israel and the USA.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Opendor Media Inc and the most unlike its peers is Middle East Media and Research Institute Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 21 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 6% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 10% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
58 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 58 of the 151 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds PEF ISRAEL ENDOWMENT FUNDS INC ↗
- Who funds Central Fund of Israel ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ITIM INC ↗
- Who funds KBY Congregations Together Inc ↗
- Who funds SEFARIA INC ↗
- Who funds Ohr Torah Stone Institutions of Israel ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES ↗
- Who funds JEWISH NATIONAL FUND (KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL) INC ↗
- Who funds JEWISH COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SOUTH FLORIDA INC ↗
- Who funds BORDERLINES FOUNDATION FOR ACADEMIC STUD IES INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds METROPOLITAN JEWISH HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE ↗
- Who funds Adi Israel Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD ↗
- Who funds US FRIENDS OF MENACHEM BEGIN HERITAGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds JEWISH COMMUNAL FUND ↗
- Who funds BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · Greater Miami Jewish Federation Inc · Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Inc · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Jewish Community Foundation of Greater Metrowest NJ · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · Fjc · United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York Inc · Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemeth Leisrael) Inc · Jewish Community Foundation of San Diego · The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington Inc
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Targum Shlishi Inc Aryeh & Raquel Rubin Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Brandeis University — 9% of income from government
- Yeshiva High School for Girls Inc — 1% of income from government
- Jewish Community Services of South Florida Inc — 1% of income from government
- University of Hartford — 1% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Targum Shlishi Inc Aryeh & Raquel Rubin Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Targum Shlishi Inc Aryeh & Raquel Rubin 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.