Skip to content
The Gottlieb Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

The Gottlieb Charitable Trust

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.

$53k
Granted FY2020
10
Grants FY2020
2
States reached
$48k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0168% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Religion$247kHealth$13kHuman Services$6kEducation$2kInternational$741Philanthropy$500Other$0
02FY2020 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2020

  • Under $10k9 grants · $5k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $48k
$500
Median grant
2
States reached
$3.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
YESHIVA TIFERES TORAH$48,000
CONGREGATION OHR TORAH$1,986
AVIGDOR'S HELPING HAND$680
Individual grant recipient$600
CURE CANAVAN FUND$500
TZUR FOUNDATION$180
Individual grant recipient$180
CHABAD HOUSE OF RUTGERS$180
Individual grant recipient$180
Individual grant recipient$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 (FY17–20, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 17% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%AVIGDOR'S HELPING HAND: $680 → 13%AVIGDOR'S HELPING HAND: $180 → 13%AVIGDOR'S HELPING HAND: $180 → 13%FAMILY RELIEF FUND: $5k → 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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$261k · 15 repeat orgs$22k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +135% since the first grant, against +110% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2020, 9 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
23

Total granted

$261k
$21k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+135%
+110%

Still filing today

20%
17%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $960 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20
HealthHuman ServicesInternationalReligionOther
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

  • YT
    YESHIVA TIFERES TORAH INC
    4× · 2017–2020 · $227k · revenue +24%
  • TJ
    THE JEWISH HOME FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $8k · revenue ×791,009
  • AH
    AVIGDORS HELPING HAND INC
    3× · 2017–2020 · $1k · revenue +135%

Funded once

  • EO
    EMUNAH ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA
    one grant, 2017 · $6k
  • FR
    FAMILY RELIEF FUND INC
    one grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue -98%
  • BC
    BIKUR CHOLIM INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $4k · revenue +562%
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
Sherit Isroel
—
2
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
3
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
4
Zichron Chaim Avraham Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Idf Memorial Foundation
Philanthropy
6
Zichron Moshe Elihu Tzedoka Fund
Philanthropy
7
Tzemach Yifroch Foundation
—
8
Beit Jala Foundation

Provide social and health care to the needy anf the elderly of beit jala.

Human Services
9
Zichron Chaim Meir Foundation
Philanthropy
10
Zichron Hamaor Foundation Trust
Philanthropy
11
Zichroin Rabbeini Meshilem Feiish Ztl Foundation
—
12
Ezras Cholim D Satmar Inc

help patients & families cope with a hospital stay

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is One Israel Fund Ltd; the most unlike its peers is Family Relief Fund Inc. 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 42 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)
8/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

YESHIVA TIFERES TORAH INC: $227,000 · OtherYESHIVA TIFERES TORAH INCIndividual grant recipient: $11,390 · Other+33 more: $33,652 · Other+33 moreFAMILY RELIEF FUND INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesAVIGDORS HELPING HAND INC: $1,040 · Human ServicesBIKUR CHOLIM INC: $4,200 · HealthCHAI LIFELINE INC: $360 · HealthFRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: $466 · InternationalONE ISRAEL FUND LTD: $175 · InternationalTZUR FOUNDATION INC: $180 · Religion
Other$272,042Human Services$6,040Health$4,560International$641Religion$180

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 budgetYESHIVA TIFERES TORAH INC: $227,000 over 4y, 1.8% of budgetTHE JEWISH HOME FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING INC: $7,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFAMILY RELIEF FUND INC: $5,000 over 1y, 9.2% of budgetBIKUR CHOLIM INC: $4,200 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAVIGDORS HELPING HAND INC: $1,040 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: $466 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $360 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTZUR FOUNDATION INC: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetONE ISRAEL FUND LTD: $175 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 YESHIVA TIFERES TORAH INC ↗
  • Who funds THE JEWISH HOME FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING INC ↗
  • Who funds FAMILY RELIEF FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds BIKUR CHOLIM INC ↗
  • Who funds AVIGDORS HELPING HAND INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES ↗
  • Who funds CHAI LIFELINE INC ↗
  • Who funds TZUR FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds ONE ISRAEL FUND LTD ↗

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 FundThe Ojc FundAbraham and Bessie Ha…The Jonathan & Esther…Terumah Foundation IncNational Philanthropi…Morgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Jewish Communal FundNY18.3× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · The Ojc Fund · Abraham and Bessie Hann Charitable Foundation Inc · The Jonathan & Esther B Rosenberg Foundation · Terumah Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Gottlieb Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Gottlieb Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • Yeshiva Tiferes Torah Inc: 3% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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 42 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $128k of grant expense with no grantee named in the published copy. A private foundation itemizes every grant it makes, so a return carrying none has filed its list as an attachment that the public copy does not include. The figures above are therefore from FY2020, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Gottlieb’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