Skip to content

· Public charity

The Laura Rosenberg Foundation Inc

Pediatric leukemia research and support

$659k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$245k
Largest
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Health$1.9MRecreation & Sports$1.7MHuman Services$298kArts & Culture$23kOther$0
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $45k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $607k
$56,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SUNRISE DAY CAMP ASSOC INC$245,000
MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING$150,000
HAPPINESS IS CAMPING$100,000
MISSION DISRUPT STAND UP TO CANCER$56,500
THE MORGAN CENTER$55,000
SIBS PLACE$30,000
HOSPICE CARE NETWORK$15,000
SAORI ARTS NYC$7,500
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 (FY18–25, $827k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%SIBS PLACE: $75k → 6%THE MORGAN CENTER: $80k → 7%SIBS PLACE: $75k → 6%THE MORGAN CENTER: $60k → 7%SIBS PLACE: $75k → 6%THE MORGAN CENTER: $55k → 7%SIBS PLACE: $75k → 6%THE MORGAN CENTER: $35k → 7%SIBS PLACE: $35k → 6%THE MORGAN CENTER: $30k → 7%SIBS PLACE: $35k → 6%THE MORGAN CENTER: $30k → 7%SIBS PLACE: $30k → 6%THE MORGAN CENTER: $30k → 7%SIBS PLACE: $25k → 6%THE MORGAN CENTER: $30k → 7%HOSPICE CARE NETWORK: $15k → 6%HOSPICE CARE NETWORK: $15k → 6%HOSPICE CARE NETWORK: $12k → 6%HOSPICE CARE NETWORK: $10k → 6%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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.7M · 8 repeat orgs$387k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +86% since the first grant, against +19% for those funded once.

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

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
4

Total granted

$3.7M
$331k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+86%
+19%

Still filing today

75%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $57k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthReligionPhilanthropyArts & CultureOther
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

  • MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.0M · revenue +121%
  • SP
    SIBS PLACE INC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $425k · revenue +20%
  • TM
    THE MORGAN CENTER
    8× · 2018–2025 · $350k · revenue +36% · 27% of their budget

Funded once

  • BF
    BARRY & FLORENCE FRIEDBERG JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER INC
    one grant, 2017 · $293k · revenue +19%
  • BC
    BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC
    one grant, 2020 · $25k · revenue -28%
  • H
    HOSPICE
    one grant, 2021 · $8k
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
Imagine a Cure Cancer Treatment
Health
2
Targeting Resistance in Cancer Cooperative
Health
3
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Leadership in the prevention, treatment, and cure of cancer through excellence, vision and cost effectiveness in patient care, outreach programs, research, and education.

Health
4
We Beat Cancer
Philanthropy
5
Long Island Jewish Medical Center

Long island jewish medical center is part of the northwell health ("northwell"), which strives to improve the health of the communities it serves and is committed to providing the highest quality clinical care; educating the current and…

Health
6
Northwell Health Cancer Institute Inc

Northwell health cancer institute is part of northwell health, inc. ("northwell"), which strives to improve the health of the communities it serves and is committed to providing the highest quality clinical care; educating the current and…

Health
7
Northwell Health Inc

Northwell health is the parent company of a fully integrated health system that is committed to promote clinical care, health education, conduct biomedical research, and caring for the community regardless of ability to pay.

Community Improvement
8
Beth Israel Hospital & Children's Hospital Medical Care Corporation

Pediatric healthcare, education & research

—
9
Sharon Strauss Parker Lymphoma Research Foundation Inc dba Life Lover Found

Funding Cancer Research

Health
10
J Walter Juckett Cancer Research Foundation Inc
Philanthropy
11
Childrens Cancer Therapy Development Institute

To make all childhood cancers universally survivable by delivering new treatments to clinical trials through scientific discovery.

—
12
Children's Hospital & Research Center At Oakland

The mission of children's hospital & research center at oakland is to protect and advance the health and well-being of children through clinical care, teaching and research.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; the most unlike its peers is Intertwine Arts 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

10 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. 10 of the 13 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
8/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SUNRISE DAY CAMP ASS INC: $1,307,467 · OtherSUNRISE DAY CAMP ASS INCHAPPINESS IS CAMPING: $535,000 · OtherHAPPINESS IS CAMPING+2 more: $12,500 · OtherMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $1,000,000 · HealthMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CAN…+2 more: $40,000 · HealthSIBS PLACE INC: $425,000 · Human ServicesSIBS PLACE INCTHE MORGAN CENTER: $350,360 · Human ServicesTHE MORGAN CENTERHOSPICE CARE NETWORK: $52,000 · Human ServicesHOSPICE CARE NETWORKBARRY & FLORENCE FRIEDBERG JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $293,000 · ReligionSTAND UP TO CANCER: $56,500 · PhilanthropyINTERTWINE ARTS INC: $22,500 · Arts & Culture
Other$1,854,967Health$1,040,000Human Services$827,360Religion$293,000Philanthropy$56,500Arts & Culture$22,500

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 budgetMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $1,000,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetSIBS PLACE INC: $425,000 over 8y, 20% of budgetTHE MORGAN CENTER: $350,360 over 8y, 27% of budgetBARRY & FLORENCE FRIEDBERG JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $293,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetHOSPICE CARE NETWORK: $52,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINTERTWINE ARTS INC: $22,500 over 3y, 8.4% of budgetANDREA RIZZO FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetRonald McDonald House Charities New York Metro Inc: $5,000 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 MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER ↗
  • Who funds SIBS PLACE INC ↗
  • Who funds THE MORGAN CENTER ↗
  • Who funds BARRY & FLORENCE FRIEDBERG JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds STAND UP TO CANCER ↗
  • Who funds HOSPICE CARE NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC ↗
  • Who funds INTERTWINE ARTS INC ↗
  • Who funds ANDREA RIZZO FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Ronald McDonald House Charities New York Metro Inc ↗

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.

Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA3.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Laura Rosenberg Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Laura Rosenberg Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–15%
    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 13 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Laura Rosenberg’s filings →

    More from the funding graph