Skip to content
The Rieger Charitable Foundation Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

The Rieger Charitable Foundation Trust

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.

$771k
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$500k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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 2024.

Religion$8.1MHuman Services$412kInternational$4k
02FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k4 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $58k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $200k
  • $250k+1 grant · $500k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$5.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMIDEI ZION OF BOBOV$500,000
KOLLEL ZICHRON CHAIM$200,000
MOSDOS SKOLYA$18,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
KOLLEL MEDRASH SHMUEL$10,000
MIKVA TAHARA OF STATEN ISLAND$10,000
CONG SHAREI ZION OF BOBOV$5,600
CONGCHASDEI BOBOV OF LAKEWOOD$5,000
Individual grant recipient$1,500
TOV VCHESED$1,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%CONG CHASDEI BOBOV OF MONSEY: $70k → 14%CONG MISHNAS YONAH: $50k → 20%CONG MISHNAS YONAH: $50k → 20%AMIDEI ZION OF BOBOV: $750k → 20%AMIDEI ZION OF BOBOV: $550k → 20%AMIDEI ZION OF BOBOV: $500k → 20%AMIDEI ZION OF BOBOV: $500k → 20%AMIDEI ZION OF BOBOV: $500k → 20%AMIDEI ZION OF BOBOV: $500k → 20%AMIDEI ZION OF BOBOV: $400k → 20%AMIDEI ZION OF BOBOV: $350k → 20%CONG KEREN CHASANIM: $106k → 20%BOBOVER YESHIVA BNEI ZION: $100k → 20%BOBOVER YESHIVA BNEI ZION: $91k → 20%BOBOVER YESHIVA BNEI ZION: $91k → 20%BOBOVER YESHIVA BNEI ZION: $90k → 20%CONG SHAREI ZION OF BOBOV: $75k → 20%CONG SHAREI ZION OF BOBOV: $63k → 20%CONG SHAREI ZION OF BOBOV: $61k → 20%CONG KEREN CHASANIM: $58k → 20%CONG SHAREI ZION OF BOBOV: $51k → 20%CONG ZICHRON ZVI DOVID: $50k → 20%MESIVTA EITZ CHAIM: $50k → 20%CONG KEREN CHASANIM: $50k → 20%CONG KEREN CHASANIM: $50k → 20%MOSDOS SKOLYA: $50k → 20%MESIVTA EITZ CHAIM: $36k → 20%CONG KEREN CHASANIM: $36k → 20%MOSDOS SKOLYA: $32k → 20%CONG KEREN CHASANIM: $28k → 20%CONG SHAREI ZION OF BOBOV: $27k → 20%CONG CHOCHMAS SHLOMO: $380k → 20%KOLLEL ZICHRON CHAIM: $280k → 20%KOLLEL ZICHRON CHAIM: $200k → 20%KOLLEL ZICHRON CHAIM: $200k → 20%KOLLEL ZICHRON CHAIM: $200k → 20%KOLLEL ZICHRON CHAIM: $154k → 20%KOLLEL ZICHRON CHAIM: $150k → 20%BNOS ZION: $101k → 20%BNOS ZION: $101k → 20%KOLLEL ZICHRON CHAIM: $100k → 20%GLOBAL CENTER OF GUR: $100k → 20%CONG CHOCHMAS SHLOMO: $100k → 20%GLOBAL CENTER OF GUR: $100k → 20%BNOS ZION: $92k → 20%BNOS ZION: $91k → 20%BNOS ZION: $51k → 20%KOLLEL ZICHRON CHAIM: $50k → 20%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$8.1M · 27 repeat orgs$196k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +13% since the first grant, against +0% for those funded once.

27 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2024, 19 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

27
35

Total granted

$8.1M
$180k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+13%
+0%

Still filing today

4%
3%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $17k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
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

  • AZ
    AMIDEI ZION OF BOBOV INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $4.0M
  • KZ
    KOLLEL ZICHRON CHAIM
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.3M
  • CC
    CONG CHOCHMAS SHLOMO
    4× · 2019–2023 · $508k

Funded once

  • CZ
    CONG ZICHRON ZVI DOVID
    one grant, 2019 · $50k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2019 · $18k
  • NB
    NSHEI BOBOV
    one grant, 2019 · $11k
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, 2017–2024.

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 2024, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 3 of the 66 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
2/3
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AMIDEI ZION OF BOBOV INC: $4,050,000 · OtherAMIDEI ZION OF BOBOV INCKOLLEL ZICHRON CHAIM: $1,334,000 · OtherKOLLEL ZICHRON CHAIMCONG CHOCHMAS SHLOMO: $508,000 · OtherCONG CHOCHMAS SHLOMOIndividual grant recipient: $435,000 · OtherBOBOVER YESHIVAH BNEI ZION: $372,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $345,500 · OtherCONG SHAREI ZION OF BOBOV: $284,118 · Other+56 more: $989,370 · Other+56 moreGLOBAL CENTER OF GUR INC: $200,000 · ReligionTALMUD TORAH BAIS AVROHOM INC: $9,000 · EducationKOLEL CHIBAS JERUSALEM: $3,600 · International
Other$8,317,988Religion$200,000Education$9,000International$3,600

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 budgetGLOBAL CENTER OF GUR INC: $200,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetTALMUD TORAH BAIS AVROHOM INC: $9,000 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetKOLEL CHIBAS JERUSALEM: $3,600 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 GLOBAL CENTER OF GUR INC ↗
  • Who funds TALMUD TORAH BAIS AVROHOM 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.

The Ojc FundThe Rachel FoundationS&W Foundation IncChavie Stern Family F…Westlawn FoundationMazal Charitable TrustEca FoundationThe Jacob Kempler Cha…Park Charitable TrustThe Etz Chaim Charita…R' Shaya Ben Moshe Fo…B&M Steinmetz Foundat…
The Ojc FundNY39.3× affinity21 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · The Rachel Foundation · S&W Foundation Inc · Chavie Stern Family Foundation Inc · Westlawn Foundation · Mazal Charitable Trust · Eca Foundation · The Jacob Kempler Charitable Foundation Inc · Park Charitable Trust · The Etz Chaim Charitable Trust · R' Shaya Ben Moshe Foundation · B&M Steinmetz 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 Rieger Charitable Foundation Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Rieger Charitable Foundation Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 Rieger Charitable Foundation Trust?

    Find your warmest path to The Rieger Charitable Foundation Trust 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 66 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Rieger’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