Skip to content
The Milton & Libbey Davis Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

The Milton & Libbey Davis Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$146k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$30k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0189% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$220kEducation$75kHealth$26kSocial Science$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $3k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $143k
$15,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$139k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHEDER TORAS ZEV$30,000
CONGREGATION ZICHRON BINYOMIN$25,000
AGUDATH ISRAEL OF BALTIMORE$23,000
TALMUDICAL ACADEMY$20,000
YESHIVA OF STATEN ISLAND$15,000
OHR CHAIM$10,000
TORAH DAY SCHOOL OF ATLANTA$10,000
ADAS$10,000
TORAH INSTITUTE$2,500
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 56% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%TALMUDICAL ACADEMY: $20k → 22%SALK INSTITUTE: $3k → 11%YESHIVA OF STATEN ISLAND: $15k → 11%MOSDOS BETH JOSEPH ZVI: $850 → 20%ADAS: $10k → 14%OHR CHAIM: $10k → 15%TORAH DAY SCHOOL OF ATLANTA: $10k → 14%RABBI JACOB JOSEPH: $20k → 8%CHEDER TORAS ZEV: $30k → 11%NER ISRAEL RABBINICAL COLLEGE: $7k → 11%AGUDATH ISRAEL OF BALTIMORE: $23k → 19%TALMUDICAL ACADEMY: $7k → 22%SALK INSTITUTE: $2k → 11%CONGREGATION ZICHRON BINYOMIN: $25k → 20%ADAS: $5k → 14%RABBI JACOB JOSEPH: $8k → 8%CHEDER TORAS ZEV: $30k → 11%NER ISRAEL RABBINICAL COLLEGE: $3k → 11%KOLLEL D'BALTIMORE: $15k → 19%TALMUDICAL ACADEMY: $5k → 22%CONGREGATION ZICHRON BINYOMIN: $10k → 20%ADAS: $5k → 14%BAIS MEDRESH GEVOHAH: $10k → 11%NER ISRAEL RABBINICAL COLLEGE: $3k → 11%SHEARITH ISRAEL CONGREGATION: $12k → 19%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF EZRA: $1k → 20%ADAS: $4k → 14%CHEDER TORAS ZEV: $5k → 11%AHAVAS YISROEL OF BALTIMORE: $4k → 11%AGUDATH ISRAEL OF BALTIMORE: $12k → 19%FRIENDS OF YESHIVAS MIR: $1k → 20%ADAS: $2k → 14%TORAH INSTITUTE: $7k → 11%KOLLEL D'BALTIMORE: $8k → 19%BAIS YAAKOV: $5k → 11%AGUDATH ISRAEL OF BALTIMORE: $7k → 19%BAIS YAAKOV: $5k → 11%AGUDATH ISRAEL OF BALTIMORE: $5k → 19%TORAH INSTITUTE: $3k → 11%YESHIVA TORAS CHAIM: $3k → 19%TORAH INSTITUTE: $2k → 11%CONGREGATION CHOFETZ: $3k → 19%AGUDATH ISRAEL OF BALTIMORE: $3k → 19%NEIMUS HATORAH: $2k → 19%KOLLEL FOR MECHANCHIM: $2k → 19%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.

Which US states its grants reach

NY
PA
NJ
CA
MD
DC
GA
FL
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.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$295k · 11 repeat orgs$73k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +12% since the first grant, against -70% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
10

Total granted

$295k
$38k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+12%
-70%

Still filing today

9%
10%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k 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
EducationInternationalOther
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

  • CT
    CHEDER TORAS ZEV
    3× · 2022–2025 · $65k · revenue +12%
  • AI
    AGUDATH ISRAEL OF BALTIMORE INC
    5× · 2018–2025 · $49k
  • CZ
    CONGREGATION ZICHRON BINYOMIN
    2× · 2024–2025 · $35k

Funded once

  • SI
    SHEARITH ISRAEL CONGREGATION INC
    one grant, 2019 · $12k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $10k
  • AY
    AHAVAS YISROEL OF BALTIMORE
    one grant, 2018 · $4k
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
04the grantee network

3 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. 3 of the 24 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
3/3
Grantees still filing
1/3
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AGUDATH ISRAEL OF BALTIMORE INC: $48,850 · OtherAGUDATH ISRAEL OF BALTIMORE INCCONGREGATION ZICHRON BINYOMIN: $35,000 · OtherCONGREGATION ZICHRON BINYOMINTALMUDICAL ACADEMY: $32,000 · OtherTALMUDICAL ACADEMYIndividual grant recipient: $27,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientADAS: $25,000 · OtherADASKOLLEL D BALTIMORE INC: $22,500 · OtherKOLLEL D BALTIMORE INCYESHIVA OF STATEN ISLAND: $15,000 · OtherNER ISRAEL RABBINICAL COLLEGE INC: $12,500 · OtherSHEARITH ISRAEL CONGREGATION INC: $12,000 · OtherTORAH INSTITUTE: $11,500 · OtherBAIS YAAKOV SCHOOL FOR GIRLS INC: $10,000 · OtherOHR CHAIM: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · Other+8 more: $20,000 · Other+8 moreCHEDER TORAS ZEV: $65,000 · EducationCHEDER TORAS ZEVTORAH DAY SCHOOL OF ATLANTA: $10,000 · EducationTORAH DAY SCHOOL OF ATL…AMERICAN FRIENDS OF EZRA L MARPEH: $1,000 · International
Other$291,850Education$75,000International$1,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCHEDER TORAS ZEV: $65,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetTORAH DAY SCHOOL OF ATLANTA: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF EZRA L MARPEH: $1,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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 CHEDER TORAS ZEV ↗
  • Who funds TORAH DAY SCHOOL OF ATLANTA ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF EZRA L MARPEH ↗

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.

Charlie and del Major…Associated Jewish Cha…Jewish Communal FundFoundation for the Pr…Gutman Family Foundat…Gemsy Zay Foundation …The Adar FoundationJewish Community Foun…National Philanthropi…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Charlie and del Major Foundation IncMD17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Charlie and del Major Foundation Inc · Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore · Jewish Communal Fund · Foundation for the Preservation & Perpetuation of Torah Laws & Customs · Gutman Family Foundation Inc · Gemsy Zay Foundation Inc · The Adar Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Milton & Libbey Davis Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Milton & Libbey Davis Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →median 22%
  • Cheder Toras Zev: 22% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
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 Milton & Libbey Davis Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to The Milton & Libbey Davis 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 24 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 Milton & Libbey Davis’ 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