Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Wurtman 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.

$161k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$72k
Largest
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Human Services$127kYouth Development$118kPublic Safety & Disaster$103kInternational$38kEducation$35kPhilanthropy$12kReligion$6kPublic Benefit$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $11k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $140k
$10,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$1.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$72,410
PICO KIDS LTD$67,842
AMERICAN ISRAEL DEMOCRACY COALITION$10,000
AM ISRAEL FOUNDATION$6,400
Individual grant recipient$4,410
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.

US giving: 44% of grant dollars ($197k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 56% that went abroad ($254k) is mapped below.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 56% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%BITACH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: $21k → 11%ISRAEL ADVOCACY GROUP: $38k → 7%HEART OF ISRAEL: $2k → 14%M2 THE INSTITUTE FOR EXPERIENTIAL JEWISH EDUCATION: $35k → 17%RAMAH IN THE ROCKIES: $10k → 12%AM ISRAEL FOUNDATION: $6k → 7%AMERICAN ISRAEL DEMOCRACY COALITION: $10k → 7%JEWISH FUNDERS NETWORK: $850 → 17%JEWISH FUNDERS NETWORK: $850 → 17%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.

Beyond the US: 56% of all-years giving ($254k)

2 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
Israel$204k · 46 grants
United Kingdom$50k · 1 grant
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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 5% of The Wurtman Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

The Wurtman Foundation Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 59% 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.

64%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$287k · 16 repeat orgs$164k to everyone else

16 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
10

Total granted

$287k
$147k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-7%
+50%

Still filing today

6%
30%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $16k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
PhilanthropyInternationalEducationReligionRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • PK
    PICO KIDS LTD
    2× · 2024–2025 · $108k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2024–2025 · $94k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    3× · 2023–2025 · $17k

Funded once

  • AS
    ALPHAHOME SYSTEMS LTD
    one grant, 2024 · $50k
  • TI
    THE ISRAEL ADVOCACY GROUP
    one grant, 2024 · $38k · revenue -73%
  • MT
    M2 THE INSTITUTE FOR EXPERIENTIAL JEWISH EDUCATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $35k · revenue +108%
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 28 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
4/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PICO KIDS LTD: $107,842 · OtherPICO KIDS LTDIndividual grant recipient: $93,690 · OtherIndividual grant recipientALPHAHOME SYSTEMS LTD: $50,000 · OtherALPHAHOME SYSTEMS LTDIndividual grant recipient: $16,610 · Other+18 more: $81,564 · Other+18 moreTHE ISRAEL ADVOCACY GROUP: $38,035 · InternationalTHE ISRAE…M2 THE INSTITUTE FOR EXPERIENTIAL JEWISH EDUCATION: $35,000 · EducationAMERICA ISRAEL DEMOCRACY COALITION: $10,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FUNDERS NETWORK: $1,700 · PhilanthropyRAMAH IN THE ROCKIES: $10,000 · Recreation & SportsAM YISRAEL FOUNDATION INC: $6,400 · Religion
Other$349,706International$38,035Education$35,000Philanthropy$11,700Recreation & Sports$10,000Religion$6,400

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE ISRAEL ADVOCACY GROUP: $38,035 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetM2 THE INSTITUTE FOR EXPERIENTIAL JEWISH EDUCATION: $35,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetRAMAH IN THE ROCKIES: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetJEWISH FUNDERS NETWORK: $1,700 over 2y, 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 THE ISRAEL ADVOCACY GROUP ↗
  • Who funds M2 THE INSTITUTE FOR EXPERIENTIAL JEWISH EDUCATION ↗
  • Who funds AMERICA ISRAEL DEMOCRACY COALITION ↗
  • Who funds RAMAH IN THE ROCKIES ↗
  • Who funds AM YISRAEL FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH FUNDERS NETWORK ↗

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.

Jewish Communal FundNY12.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
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, FY20–25
    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 Wurtman Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to The Wurtman 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 28 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 Wurtman’s filings →

    More from the funding graph