Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Max and Morton M Rosenfeld Foundation Inc

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.

$130k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$130k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Health$261kArts & Culture$250kPhilanthropy$155kInternational$134kReligion$40kPublic Safety & Disaster$16kCivil Rights$11kHuman Services$1k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$130,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$701k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FIDELITY CHARITABLE FOUNDATION$130,000
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 (FY21–21, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%ACRE FAMILY CHILD CARE: $1k → 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.
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 7% of The Max and Morton M Rosenfeld Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

The Max and Morton M Rosenfeld Foundation Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 7.1% 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.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$693k · 10 repeat orgs$175k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +63% since the first grant, against +29% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
6

Total granted

$693k
$45k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+63%
+29%

Still filing today

50%
17%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $130k 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
HealthInternationalHuman ServicesOther
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

  • IR
    International Rescue Committee INC
    4× · 2020–2024 · $56k · revenue +63%
  • PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION
    3× · 2017–2024 · $47k · revenue +120%
  • EH
    EMERSON HOSPITAL
    2× · 2023–2024 · $10k · revenue +15%

Funded once

  • PH
    PEGGY H KAUFMAN FUND AT JFCS
    one grant, 2019 · $25k
  • S
    SPLC
    one grant, 2018 · $11k
  • BI
    BLOCK ISLAND MEDICAL CENTER
    one grant, 2021 · $5k
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
05the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 17 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)
6/6
Grantees still filing
5/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UMBRELLA ARTS CENTER: $150,000 · OtherUMBRELLA ARTS CENTERUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School: $140,000 · OtherUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolFIDELITY CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $130,000 · OtherFIDELITY CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONTHE UMBRELLA CENTER FOR THE ARTS: $100,000 · OtherTHE UMBRELLA CENTER FOR THE ARTSUMASS MEDICAL CENTER: $100,000 · OtherUMASS MEDICAL CENTERKEREM SHALOM INC: $40,000 · OtherKEREM SHALOM INCPEGGY H KAUFMAN FUND AT JFCS: $25,000 · Other+4 more: $19,000 · OtherInternational Rescue Committee INC: $56,000 · InternationalInternational…WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $46,000 · InternationalWORLD CENTRAL…PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $47,000 · HealthEMERSON HOSPITAL: $10,000 · HealthBLOCK ISLAND HEALTH SERVICES INC: $3,500 · HealthACRE FAMILY CHILD CARE INC: $1,000 · Human Services
Other$704,000International$102,000Health$60,500Human Services$1,000

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 budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC: $56,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetPARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $47,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $46,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetEMERSON HOSPITAL: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBLOCK ISLAND HEALTH SERVICES INC: $3,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetACRE FAMILY CHILD CARE INC: $1,000 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.

  • Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
  • Who funds PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
  • Who funds EMERSON HOSPITAL ↗
  • Who funds BLOCK ISLAND HEALTH SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds ACRE FAMILY CHILD CARE 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.

Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust IncIN11× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust 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 Max and Morton M Rosenfeld Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Max and Morton M Rosenfeld Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • Acre Family Child Care Inc: 45% of income from government
  • Emerson Hospital: 3% of income from government
  • Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get 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 · 0–75%
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 Max and Morton M Rosenfeld Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to The Max and Morton M Rosenfeld Foundation Inc 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 17 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 Max and Morton M Rosenfeld’s filings →

More from the funding graph