Skip to content
The Immerman Foundation at a glance

· Public charity

The Immerman Foundation

Further the charitable, educational and religious purposes of the jewish federation of cleveland ("federation").

$283k
Granted FY2022
12
Grants FY2022
5
States reached
$60k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

51% of The Immerman Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Jewish Federation Of Cleveland, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 12 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2022, the last year The Immerman Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 11 organizations, $280k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

9
’18
11
’19
11
’20
11
’21
11
’22
13
’23
12
’24
12
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Philanthropy$881kInternational$765kReligion$675kEducation$332kRecreation & Sports$164kPublic Benefit$110kYouth Development$60kCivil Rights$36kOther$0
02FY2022 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • $10k–50k10 grants · $170k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $110k
$20,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$7.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMERICAN JEWISH JOINT DISTRIBUTION COMMITTEE INC$60,000
JEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND$50,000
CONGREGATION SHAAREY TIKVAH$24,439
JEWISH EDUCATION CENTER OF CLEVELAND$21,000
JEWISH INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY OF AMERICA$20,000
SEGULA$20,000
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MATAN INC 13-3639482 PO BOX 40 POMONA NY 10970- 509$20,000
HUDSON INSTITUTE INC$20,000
RAMAH DAROM INC$15,000
NATIONAL RAMAH COMMISSION INC$10,000
RESRCH EVALPROMOTING ORG RESPONSIBILITY & TRANSPARENCY REPORT INC$10,000
HUMAN RIGHTS VOICES$10,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY23–23, $30k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA: $20k → 17%MANDEL JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF CLEVELAND: $10k → 17%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $40k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Middle East and North Africa$40k · 100% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: GENERAL SUPPORT · TINY HOUSE STRUCTURE AND SEWING STUDIO

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 38% of The Immerman Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

The Immerman Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 25% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.1M · 14 repeat orgs$85k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +59% since the first grant, against -58% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2022, 3 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call). Read against FY2022, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
1

Total granted

$2.1M
$30k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+59%
-58%

Still filing today

86%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
InternationalReligionPhilanthropyEducationHuman ServicesCivil 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

  • The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee Inc
    6× · 2018–2025 · $360k · revenue +16%
  • NR
    NATIONAL RAMAH COMMISSION INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $334k · revenue +253%
  • JE
    JEWISH EDUCATION CENTER OF CLEVELAND
    8× · 2018–2025 · $220k · revenue +79%

Funded once

  • CC
    Cleveland Community Mikvah Inc
    one grant, 2019 · $30k · revenue -58%
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
The Jerusalem Connection
—
2
Foundation for Conservative Judiasm of South Florida
—
3
National Council of Jewish Women Inc Jersey Hills Section
—
4
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
5
Israel 21c

Through its news service and public programs, Israel 21c educates individuals and groups about comtemporary life in Israel providing news and information on the people of Israel, its culture and business and scientific achievements.

Education
6
American Council for World Jewry Inc

Founded so jews, worldwide, can join together in partnership, ensuring our common good and coolective survival. the council acts in the belief that the key to successfully countering threats against the jewish people and the state if…

Civil Rights
7
Jewish Community Relations Council of Indianapolis

The Jewish Community Relations Council is the public affairs arm of the organized Jewish community, building consensus on issues of concern, and then communicating those interests to policy makers, faith and ethnic communities, civic…

—
8
American Jewish Congress Inc

Committed to the preservation and extension of the democratic way of life and to the unity creative survival of the jewish people throughout the world. it seeks to unite for the attainment of these goals all american jews similarly…

International
9
Delegation of Jewish American Students (Dojas)
—
10
Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington

As the central community relations agency of the organized jewish community in our nation's capital, the jcrc of greater washington endeavors to foster a society based on freedom, justice and democratic pluralism for it is such a society…

Community Improvement
11
Voices United for Israel

Educational information regarding Israel and the Middle East.

International
12
New Jewish Narrative Inc

To support a strong and secure israel and to carry out public information activities on the middle east peace issues in the united states.

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Jewish Committee; the most unlike its peers is Hudson 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.
05the grantee network

18 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. 18 of the 20 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
13/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND: $881,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELANDAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MATAN INC: $98,000 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MATAN INC+1 more: $15,000 · PhilanthropyNATIONAL RAMAH COMMISSION INC: $334,000 · OtherNATIONAL RAMAH COMMISSION INCCONGREGATION SHAAREY TIKVAH: $174,645 · OtherCONGREGATION SHAAREY TIKVAHHudson Institute Inc: $160,000 · OtherHudson Institute IncRAMAH DAROM INC: $125,000 · OtherRAMAH DAROM INCFUCHS MIZRACHI SCHOOLS: $110,000 · OtherFUCHS MIZRACHI SCHOOLSMICHIGAN B'NAI B'RITH HILLEL FOUNDATION INC: $45,010 · OtherThe American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee Inc: $360,000 · InternationalThe American Jewish Joint…RESEARCH - EVAL - PROMOTING ORG RESPON & TRANSPARENCY - REPORT - INC: $130,000 · InternationalRESEARCH - EVAL - PROMOTI…JEWISH INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY OF AMERICA: $120,000 · InternationalJEWISH INSTITUTE FOR NATI…HUMAN RIGHTS VOICES: $90,000 · InternationalHUMAN RIGHTS VOICESJEWISH EDUCATION CENTER OF CLEVELAND: $220,320 · ReligionJEWISH ED…Cleveland Community Mikvah Inc: $30,000 · ReligionCleveland…SEGULA: $80,000 · EducationISRAEL ON CAMPUS COALITION INC: $40,000 · EducationJEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA: $20,000 · Human ServicesThe Mandel Jewish Community Center of Cleveland: $10,000 · Human ServicesAMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE: $10,000 · Civil Rights
Philanthropy$994,000Other$948,655International$700,000Religion$250,320Education$120,000Human Services$30,000Civil Rights$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND: $881,000 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetThe American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee Inc: $360,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL RAMAH COMMISSION INC: $334,000 over 6y, 1.0% of budgetJEWISH EDUCATION CENTER OF CLEVELAND: $220,320 over 8y, 0.6% of budgetHudson Institute Inc: $160,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetRESEARCH - EVAL - PROMOTING ORG RESPON & TRANSPARENCY - REPORT - INC: $130,000 over 8y, 1.4% of budgetJEWISH INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY OF AMERICA: $120,000 over 8y, 0.3% of budgetFUCHS MIZRACHI SCHOOLS: $110,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MATAN INC: $98,000 over 5y, 3.5% of budgetHUMAN RIGHTS VOICES: $90,000 over 8y, 2.9% of budgetSEGULA: $80,000 over 4y, 8.6% of budgetMICHIGAN B'NAI B'RITH HILLEL FOUNDATION INC: $45,010 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetISRAEL ON CAMPUS COALITION INC: $40,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCleveland Community Mikvah Inc: $30,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetJEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetThe Mandel Jewish Community Center of Cleveland: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE: $10,000 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.

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 Federation of …Jewish Community Fede…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Jewish Federation of ClevelandOH15.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Federation of Cleveland · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · 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 Immerman Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Immerman Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The Immerman Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Immerman 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 20 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Immerman’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