· Private foundation
The Frieda & Leon Steinberg Charitable Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
Read this first · the figures below need context
72% of The Frieda & Leon Steinberg Charitable Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Jewish Federation Of Las Vegas Sigesmund Center, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 3 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 91% of THE FRIEDA & LEON STEINBERG CHARITABLE 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 · FY2024
- Under $10k5 grants · $22k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $45k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $150k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| JEWISH NEVADA | $150,000 |
| TEMPLE BETH SHOLOM | $45,000 |
| GIRLS TOWN OR CHADASH | $5,000 |
| THE JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY | $5,000 |
| JEWISH NATIONAL FUND | $5,000 |
| BBYO | $5,000 |
| CHABAD OF SOUTHERN NEVADA | $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 (FY19–20, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% 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.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 15% of The Frieda & Leon Steinberg Charitable Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 86% of the giving stays in NV; read by stated purpose it is 82% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
12 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
- BBB'NAI B'RITH YOUTH ORGANIZATION4× · 2019–2024 · $15k · revenue +9%
- JFJEWISH FAMILY SERVICE AGENCY3× · 2019–2021 · $13k · revenue +185%
- NANathan Adelson Hospice Foundation Inc2× · 2019–2020 · $8k · revenue +97%
Funded once
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOMgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $36k · revenue +252%
- TRThe Ronald & Judy Mack Religious Education Foundationgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $2k · revenue +246%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2018 · $1k
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.
The jewish endowment foundation of louisiana (jef), chartered in 1967, ensures a secure future and an enduring legacy by serving as an essential resource for jewish and non-jewish philanthropy.
To voluntarily assist the house of religious learning known as yeshiva neveh zion in israel
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of Magen David Adom and the most unlike its peers is The Ronald & Judy Mack Religious Education Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 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. 10 of the 21 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 JEWISH FEDERATION OF LAS VEGAS SIGESMUND CENTER ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM ↗
- Who funds JEWISH NATIONAL FUND (KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL) INC ↗
- Who funds B'NAI B'RITH YOUTH ORGANIZATION ↗
- Who funds JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE AGENCY ↗
- Who funds Nathan Adelson Hospice Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds DR MIRIAM AND SHELDON G ADELSON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA LAS VEGAS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds The Ronald & Judy Mack Religious Education Foundation ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA DAY SCHOOL OF LAS VEGAS ↗
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: Steinberg Family Foundation · Jewish Federation of Las Vegas Sigesmund Center · The Lionel Foundation · Susan G Fine Family Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 The Frieda & Leon Steinberg Charitable 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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.