Skip to content
The Ida and William Rosenthal Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Ida and William Rosenthal Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$163k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02Its granteesRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0188% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Arts & Culture$146kEducation$98kEnvironment$57kYouth Development$50kCommunity Improvement$40kInternational$13kCrime & Legal$8kRecreation & Sports$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $93,200, the rows itemized in this filing. The $162,800 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $69,600 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k6 grants · $22k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $71k
$10,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$2.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
INSTITUTE OF FINE ARTS, NYU$15,000
TEENS OF COLOR ABROAD$15,000
ECOLOGY PROJECT INTERNATIONAL$11,000
CITY CENTER$10,000
JUILLIARD SCHOOL$10,000
KORSA MUSICAL THEATER$10,000
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ATTINGHAM$7,200
CENTRAL PARK CONSERVANCY$5,000
WILLIAMS COLLEGE$5,000
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO$2,500
CHAMBER MUSIC SOCIETY AT LINCOLN CENTER$1,500
JAZZ AT LINCOLN CENTER$1,000
02Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

72%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$302k · 11 repeat orgs$116k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
13

Total granted

$302k
$98k

Still filing today

0%
54%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $18k 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
EducationInternationalRecreation & SportsCivil RightsOther
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

  • IO
    INSTITUTE OF FINE ARTS, NYU
    4× · 2022–2025 · $60k
  • TO
    TEENS OF COLOR ABROAD
    4× · 2022–2025 · $50k
  • EP
    ECOLOGY PROJECT INTERNATIONAL
    4× · 2022–2025 · $42k

Funded once

  • University of Chicago
    one grant, 2023 · $18k · revenue +21%
  • YM
    Youth Musical Theater Company
    one grant, 2024 · $12k
  • CM
    CHAZEN MUSEUM OF ART
    one grant, 2022 · $11k
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.

03Its field
03the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 28 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
6/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INSTITUTE OF FINE ARTS, NYU: $60,000 · OtherINSTITUTE OF FINE ARTS, NYUTEENS OF COLOR ABROAD: $50,000 · OtherTEENS OF COLOR ABROADECOLOGY PROJECT INTERNATIONAL: $42,000 · OtherECOLOGY PROJECT INTERNATIONALCITY CENTER: $40,000 · OtherCITY CENTERUNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: $25,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOJUILLIARD SCHOOL: $25,000 · OtherJUILLIARD SCHOOLCENTRAL PARK CONSERVANCY: $15,000 · OtherAMERICAN FRIENDS OF ATTINGHAM: $13,300 · Other+14 more: $101,360 · Other+14 moreUniversity of Chicago: $17,500 · EducationJUILLIARD SCHOOL: $10,000 · EducationThe President and Trustees of Colby College: $5,000 · EducationAMERICAN FRIENDS OF ATTINGHAM INC: $6,100 · InternationalCENTRAL PARK CONSERVANCY INC: $5,000 · Recreation & SportsCourt Appointed Special Advocates of Santa Cruz County: $3,000 · Civil Rights
Other$371,660Education$32,500International$6,100Recreation & Sports$5,000Civil Rights$3,000

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 budgetUniversity of Chicago: $17,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCALIFORNIA SHAKESPEARE THEATER: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetJUILLIARD SCHOOL: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF ATTINGHAM INC: $6,100 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetThe President and Trustees of Colby College: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCENTRAL PARK CONSERVANCY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCourt Appointed Special Advocates of Santa Cruz County: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 University of Chicago ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA SHAKESPEARE THEATER ↗
  • Who funds JUILLIARD SCHOOL ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ATTINGHAM INC ↗
  • Who funds The President and Trustees of Colby College ↗
  • Who funds CENTRAL PARK CONSERVANCY INC ↗
  • Who funds Court Appointed Special Advocates of Santa Cruz County ↗

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.

Vanguard Charitable E…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Vanguard Charitable Endowment ProgramPA10× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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.
04Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to The Ida and William Rosenthal Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The Ida and William Rosenthal 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.

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 28 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 Ida and William Rosenthal’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