Skip to content
The Rosenfeld Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Rosenfeld Family Foundation

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.

$626k
Granted FY2024still arriving
37
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$250k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0168% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Religion$1.1MPhilanthropy$105kHuman Services$6kEducation$3kYouth Development$3kOther$0
02FY2024 · 37 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k28 grants · $94k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $106k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $176k
  • $250k+1 grant · $250k
$4,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONG BAIS AHRON VYISROEL$250,360
THE DONORS FUND$101,000
BNOS ALTA FEIGA$75,000
VARIOUS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS$32,913
CONG KHAL ANSHEI EMUNAH$25,000
CONG SHAARE BETH YOSEF$15,000
CONG BAIS MOSHE KORUV$13,110
BNOS ZION OF BOBOV$10,180
LECHABER MOACH VEHALEV INC$10,000
Individual grant recipient$9,680
YISMACH MOSHE INSTITUTE$6,750
SLABODKA YESHIVA RABBINICAL COLEGE$6,300
MESIVTA EITZ CHAIM$5,360
EMUNAS BAIS YAAKOV$5,180
TALMUD TORAH ZECHER YOCHONON$5,000
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 18%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 91% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%CONG SHAAREI CHESED: $42k → 14%BHMD BY ON CHEVRON INC: $38k → 14%LECHABER MOACH VEHALEV INC: $10k → 10%THE DONORS FUND: $101k → 11%MACHON L'HOYROH: $25k → 14%CONG SHAARE BETH YOSEF: $15k → 14%BNOS BINA: $13k → 11%CONG SHAAREI CHESED: $21k → 14%BAIS CHANA: $10k → 20%LEGADEL: $15k → 14%CONG KHAL ANSHEI EMUNAH: $50k → 14%CONG SHAAREI CHESED: $13k → 14%CONG KHAL ANSHEI EMUNAH: $25k → 14%CONG SHAREI ZION: $211k → 20%CONG SHAREI ZION: $51k → 20%FRIENDS OF ARAD INC: $50k → 20%CONG SHAREI ZION: $44k → 20%CONG SHAREI ZION: $40k → 20%TALMID TORAH TIFERES BUNIM: $36k → 20%KOLLEL IYUN D'BOBOV: $36k → 20%CONG SHAREI ZION: $35k → 20%CONG SHAREI ZION: $35k → 20%VARIOUS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS: $33k → 20%MESAMCHE LEV: $30k → 20%VARIOUS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS: $23k → 20%FOLTISHEN INSTITITION INC: $18k → 20%CONG AHAVAS TZDOKAH VCHESED: $18k → 20%BOBOVER YESHIVA BNEI ZION: $15k → 20%CONG SHAREI ZION: $13k → 20%BNOS ZION OF BOBOV: $10k → 20%BNOS ZION OF BOBOV: $10k → 20%CONGREGATION MASSE ROKEACH: $10k → 20%CONG TOV LKOL: $10k → 20%TOLDOS YAKOV YOSEF: $10k → 20%VOIDISLAVER CONGREGATION: $10k → 20%VARIOUS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS: $9k → 20%BOBOVER YESHIVA BNEI ZION: $9k → 20%VARIOUS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS: $8k → 20%VARIOUS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS: $7k → 20%FOLTISHEN INSTITUTIONS INC: $7k → 20%CONG BAIS AHRON VYISROEL: $250k → 20%CONG BAIS MOSHE KORUV: $42k → 20%CONGREGATION BAIS MOSHE KORUV: $28k → 20%CONGREGATION BAIS MOSHE KORUV: $20k → 20%CONGREGATION BAIS MOSHE KORUV: $20k → 20%CONG BAIS MOSHE KORUV: $20k → 20%CONG BAIS MOSHE KORUV: $13k → 20%IRGUN SHIUREI TORAH: $10k → 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.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.4M · 29 repeat orgs$431k to everyone else

29 repeat relationships: 17 still active in FY2024, 12 since wound down; 19 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

29
26

Total granted

$1.4M
$279k

Still filing today

0%
4%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $152k 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
HealthReligionOther
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

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    8× · 2017–2024 · $431k
  • CB
    CONG BAIS AHRON VYISROEL
    3× · 2020–2024 · $255k
  • VL
    VARIOUS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS
    8× · 2017–2024 · $89k

Funded once

  • FO
    FRIENDS OF ARAD INC
    one grant, 2021 · $50k
  • BB
    BHMD BY ON CHEVRON INC
    one grant, 2018 · $38k
  • TT
    TALMUD TORAH TIFERES BUNIM
    one grant, 2020 · $36k
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

7 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. 7 of the 75 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
4/7
Grantees still filing
2/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $430,558 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCONG BAIS AHRON VYISROEL: $255,040 · OtherCONG BAIS AHRON VYISROELVARIOUS LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS: $88,885 · OtherCONG SHAAREI CHESED: $82,000 · OtherBNOS ALTA FEIGE: $75,000 · OtherCONG KHAL ANSHEI EMUNAH: $75,000 · OtherCONG BAIS MOSHE KORUV: $74,710 · OtherCONGREGATION BAIS MOSHE OF KORUV INC: $68,450 · Other+64 more: $656,590 · Other+64 moreDONORS FUND INC: $101,000 · PhilanthropyLev Leyeled Inc: $3,600 · HealthOHR NAAVA: $2,450 · Religion
Other$1,806,233Philanthropy$101,000Health$3,600Religion$2,450

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 budgetDONORS FUND INC: $101,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLev Leyeled Inc: $3,600 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetKUPATH EZRAH OF ROCKLAND COUNTY INC: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDAF SHEL SRULY INCORPORATED: $2,500 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetOHR NAAVA: $2,450 over 1y, 0.2% 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 DONORS FUND 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 FundJack Adjmi Family Fou…S&W Foundation IncJewish Communal FundMazal Charitable TrustBirkas Rosh Foundatio…Chaim Maleh FoundationZichron Chaim Charity…National Society for …Bnei Rachmonim Founda…Park Charitable TrustSdei Israel Foundatio…
The Ojc FundNY50.7× affinity31 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · S&W Foundation Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Mazal Charitable Trust · Birkas Rosh Foundation Inc · Chaim Maleh Foundation · Zichron Chaim Charity Fund · National Society for Hebrew Day Schools · Bnei Rachmonim Foundation · Park Charitable Trust · Sdei Israel Foundation Inc

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 Rosenfeld Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Rosenfeld Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’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
    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 · 0–5%
    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.

    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 75 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 Rosenfeld Family’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