· Private foundation
The Nathan & Lena Seiler Family Fdn
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 67% of THE NATHAN & LENA SEILER FAMILY FDN’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k30 grants · $98k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $83k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CONGREGATION LAASOK V'LAASOK | $44,500 |
| YESHIVA INSTITUTE DIVREI SHMUEL | $18,000 |
| FOOD FOR FREE COMMITTEE | $10,000 |
| TAMPA TORAH CENTER | $10,000 |
| CHOFETZ CHAIM HERITAGE FOUNDATION | $9,000 |
| THE RED ROVER RELIEF | $7,500 |
| THE PETER WESTBROOK FOUNDATION | $7,500 |
| MISHMERES HASHALOM | $6,800 |
| THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY | $6,000 |
| YAFFED | $6,000 |
| ALIGHT | $5,000 |
| TEXAS TORAH CENTER | $5,000 |
| CENTER FOR DISASTER PHILATHROPY | $5,000 |
| THE BRATTLE FILM FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MOSDOS MONTREAL | $5,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY19–19, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +38% since the first grant, against +14% for the ones you funded once.
40 repeat relationships — 22 still active in FY2024, 18 since wound down; 12 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $38k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- PWPETER WESTBROOK FOUNDATION INC5× · 2019–2024 · $100k · revenue +43%
- CCCHOFETZ CHAIM HERITAGE FOUNDATION6× · 2018–2024 · $53k · revenue +13%
- ACAmerican Commitee for Ahavas Torah Inc3× · 2018–2020 · $48k · revenue +45%
Funded once
- BFBOOKS FOR AFRICA INCone grant, 2019 · $20k · revenue -27%
- TITHE INNOCENCE PROJECT INCgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $15k · revenue +35%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2018 · $12k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The jewish agency binds jews across ideologies and civilizations together in a worldwide jewish family with israel at its center. it provides the global framework for aliyah, ensures global jewish safety, strengthens jewish identity and…
To promote and support jewish religious charitable and educational activities in israel & usa.
To provide religious education and services to our students in the tradition of the orthodox jewish faith
To support, benefit, and assist yeshivat netiv hadaat- jerusalem
Preserve and curate educational and historical video, audio and photography, sharing these archival treasures through educational programming. our most prominent subject is the rebbe, rabbi menachem m. schneerson, of righteous memory
Offering jewish adults a personal connection to judaism,fostering a sense of belonging to the greater jewishcommunity, and building bridges between jews of allbackgrounds. to date, over 74,000 men and women from 39countries have been…
To further jewish education in israel
To provide religious Jewish education.
To proclaim the gospel, grow the messianic jewish community and engage the church concerning israel and the jewish people. this is done through education, evangelism and being a movement leader, all with excellence in order to transform…
To promote, benefit, and support jewish educational activities in israel
Religious School
To provide children with an outstanding Jewish and Secular education.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Vocational Service Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Innocence Project Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 24 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 10% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 10% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
24 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 24 of the 76 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds PETER WESTBROOK FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds CHOFETZ CHAIM HERITAGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds American Commitee for Ahavas Torah Inc ↗
- Who funds FOOD FOR FREE COMMITTEE INC ↗
- Who funds MISHMERES HASHOLOM INC ↗
- Who funds JEWISH VOCATIONAL SERVICE INC ↗
- Who funds BRATTLE FILM FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds MORE THAN WORDS INC ↗
- Who funds YAFFED INC ↗
- Who funds BOOKS FOR AFRICA INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR INQUIRY INC ↗
- Who funds THE INNOCENCE PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds ALIGHT ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI TORAH INSTITUTE ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · The Ojc Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Shell USA Company Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization The Nathan & Lena Seiler Family Fdn funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Cooperative Development Institute Inc — 58% of income from government
- Jewish Vocational Service Inc — 39% of income from government
- More Than Words Inc — 24% of income from government
- Food for Free Committee Inc — 3% of income from government
- Brattle Film Foundation Inc — 1% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Nathan & Lena Seiler Family Fdn?
Find your warmest path to The Nathan & Lena Seiler Family Fdn 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.