Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Emily and Ted Sherman Charitable 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.

$26k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$10k
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, FY2022 to 2025.

Religion$38kPhilanthropy$26kHealth$5kRecreation & Sports$4kHuman Services$4kCrime & Legal$3kInternational$1kArts & Culture$1kOther$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,031
Median grant
2
States reached
$486k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
JEWISH FEDERATION OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT$9,500
TEMPLE BETH EL$7,000
CHABAD OF BINGHAM FARMS$2,000
JEWISH HOSPICE AND CHAPLAINCY NETWORK$2,000
BIRTHRIGHT ISRAEL FOUNDATION$1,031
CHABAD OF TRAVERSE CITY$1,000
ACCESS TO BANKRUPTCY COURT$1,000
TAMARACK CAMPS$1,000
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN$1,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY22–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 14% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%BIRTHRIGHT ISRAEL FOUNDATION: $1k → 17%CHABAD OF TRAVERSE CITY: $1k → 7%YAD EZRA: $1k → 8%CHABAD OF TRAVERSE CITY: $1k → 10%MICHIGAN HILLEL: $1k → 14%ACCESS TO BANKRUPTCY: $1k → 21%JEWISH HOSPICE AND CHAPLAINCY NETWORK: $2k → 8%JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER: $1k → 14%ACCESS TO BANKRUPTCY COURT: $1k → 21%JEWISH HOSPICE AND CHAPLAINCY NETWORK: $2k → 8%JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER: $1k → 14%ACCESS TO BANKRUPTCY COURT: $1k → 21%JEWISH HOSPICE AND CHAPLAINCY NETWORK: $1k → 8%MICHIGAN HILLEL: $1k → 14%DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS: $1k → 21%JEWISH SENIOR LIFE: $1k → 8%MICHIGAN HILLEL: $1k → 14%JEWISH FEDERATION OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT: $10k → 8%TEMPLE BETH EL: $7k → 8%TEMPLE BETH EL: $7k → 8%TEMPLE BETH EL: $5k → 8%TEMPLE BETH EL: $5k → 8%JEWISH FEDERATION OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT: $4k → 8%CHABAD OF BINGHAM FARMS: $2k → 8%JEWISH WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $2k → 8%CHABAD OF BINGHAM FARMS: $2k → 8%TAMARACK CAMPS: $1k → 8%TAMARACK CAMPS: $1k → 8%CHABAD OF BINGHAM FARMS: $1k → 8%TAMARACK CAMPS: $1k → 8%TAMARACK CAMPS: $1k → 8%CHABAD OF BINGHAM FARMS: $1k → 8%NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN: $1k → 8%NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN: $1k → 8%NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN: $1k → 8%NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN: $1k → 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.
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.

88%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$52k · 9 repeat orgs$7k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +34% since the first grant, against +19% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
5

Total granted

$52k
$6k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+19%

Still filing today

44%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
ReligionCommunity ImprovementArts & CultureInternationalOther
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

  • NC
    NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN MICHIG
    4× · 2022–2025 · $4k · revenue +31%
  • MB
    MICHIGAN B'NAI B'RITH HILLEL FOUNDATION INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $3k · revenue +34%
  • JR
    JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER
    2× · 2022–2023 · $2k · revenue +43%

Funded once

  • JW
    JEWISH WOMEN'S FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2024 · $2k
  • JS
    JEWISH SENIOR LIFE
    one grant, 2022 · $1k
  • THE DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS
    one grant, 2022 · $1k · revenue +8%
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
Congregation B'nai B'rith Hillel

The mission of hillel is to maximize the opportunities for jews to participate in jewish life at michigan state university.

Religion
3
National Council of Jewish Women Inc Jersey Hills Section
—
4
Jewish Historical Society of Michigan

Jewish historical society of michigan shares and celebrates the experiences and contributions of the jewish people, communities and institutions of michigan.

—
5
Bureau of Jewish Education of Greater Buffalo Inc

Education opportunity for the jewish community

—
6
The Jewish Fund

The jewish fund is organized and operates exclusively for charitable, educational, and religious purposes. the fund's primary activities are: supporting a jewish health care mission in the greater detroit area and michigan; promotion of…

Philanthropy
7
Jewish Federation of Grand Rapids

The jewish federation of grand rapids strengthens and unifies the jewish community and functions as an umbrella organization to provide for the cultural, social and financial needs of our community, world jewry and the state of israel.

—
8
Jewish Electorate Institute

The jewish electorate institute (jei) is an independent, non-partisan 501(c)(3) organization that surveys, interprets, reports, and educates the public about the perspectives, voting behaviors, and motivations of the american jewish…

Civil Rights
9
Hillel Jewish University Center

To enrich the lives of jewish undergraduate students so that they may enrich the jewish people and the world.

—
10
Chabad Jewish Center

The Organization operates an religious outreach center to promote and understand Judaism and the laws of Kosher.

Human Services
11
Flint Jewish Federation

To further the welfare of the jewish community

Philanthropy
12
Young Jewish Professionals Miami Inc

The Organization provides religious and educational programs geared towards young Jewish professionals.

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Federation of Detroit; the most unlike its peers is The Detroit Institute of Arts. 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

8 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. 8 of the 16 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TEMPLE BETH EL: $24,100 · OtherTEMPLE BETH ELCHABAD OF BINGHAM FARMS: $6,050 · OtherCHABAD OF BINGHAM FARMSTAMARACK CAMPS: $4,050 · OtherTAMARACK CAMPSMICHIGAN B'NAI B'RITH HILLEL FOUNDATION INC: $3,050 · OtherMICHIGAN B'NAI B'RITH HILLEL FOUNDATION INCJEWISH WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $2,050 · OtherACCESS TO BANKRUPTCY COURT: $2,000 · OtherCHABAD OF TRAVERSE CITY: $2,000 · Other+3 more: $3,000 · Other+3 moreJEWISH FEDERATION OF DETROIT: $23,600 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FEDERATION OF DETROITJEWISH HOSPICE & CHAPLAINCY NETWORK: $5,050 · ReligionJEWISH HO…JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER: $2,000 · ReligionJEWISH RE…NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN MICHIG: $4,050 · Community ImprovementBIRTHRIGHT ISRAEL FOUNDATION: $1,031 · InternationalTHE DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS: $1,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$46,300Philanthropy$23,600Religion$7,050Community Improvement$4,050International$1,031Arts & Culture$1,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF DETROIT: $23,600 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH HOSPICE & CHAPLAINCY NETWORK: $5,050 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetNATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN MICHIG: $4,050 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetMICHIGAN B'NAI B'RITH HILLEL FOUNDATION INC: $3,050 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH RESOURCE CENTER: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYAD EZRA: $1,000 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 JEWISH FEDERATION OF DETROIT ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH HOSPICE & CHAPLAINCY NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN MICHIG ↗
  • Who funds MICHIGAN B'NAI B'RITH HILLEL FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds BIRTHRIGHT ISRAEL FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds THE DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS ↗
  • Who funds YAD EZRA ↗

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.

Alan Jay and Sue Kaufman FoundationMI13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Alan Jay and Sue Kaufman Foundation · Grosfeld Foundation · Edward and Norma Jean Meer Charitable Foundation · Marjorie and Maxwell Jospey Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 The Emily and Ted Sherman Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Emily and Ted Sherman Charitable 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s 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, FY20–25
    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 16 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 Emily and Ted Sherman’s filings →

    More from the funding graph