Skip to content

· Private foundation

Valera Fooksman Charitable Trust

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.

$39k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

International$175kHuman Services$69kArts & Culture$55kReligion$31kEducation$9kFood & Nutrition$1kPhilanthropy$500Recreation & Sports$300Other$0
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k6 grants · $14k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
$2,200
Median grant
4
States reached
$1.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL$25,000
BAT AYIN FOUNDATION$5,500
KUMAH$2,500
CLUB Z$2,200
HEART OF ISRAEL FOUNDATION$2,000
CHABAD$1,000
CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL$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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 33% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%GUSH ETZION FOUNDATION: $62k → 8%GUSH ETZION: $50k → 16%CHABAD NP: $350 → 7%GARDNER BULLIS SCHOOL FUND: $525 → 8%PRAGER UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $25 → 14%CHABAD AT UCSB: $250 → 14%CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL: $100k → 6%YESHIVAT OD YOSEF CHAI: $500 → 14%CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL: $25k → 17%HEBRON FUND: $500 → 20%NBCF: $60 → 5%KUMAH: $7k → 14%CLUB Z: $2k → 8%CLUB Z: $400 → 7%JEWISH FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES: $500 → 8%PRAGER UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $25 → 14%CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL: $25k → 6%CENTRAL BANK OF ISRAEL: $3k → 17%KUMAH: $6k → 14%CLUB Z: $720 → 8%CHABAD OF MID PENINSULA: $850 → 7%MAGICAL BRIDGE FOUNDATION: $300 → 8%CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL: $7k → 6%ISRAEL LAND FUND: $1k → 17%KUMAH INC: $5k → 14%CHABAD OF MID PENINSULA: $500 → 7%PINEWOOD SCHOOL: $500 → 8%CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL: $3k → 6%CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL: $500 → 17%KUMAH: $5k → 14%FILOLI CHARITABLE TRUST: $130 → 7%HEART OF ISRAEL FOUNDATION: $3k → 6%CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL: $400 → 17%KUMAH: $3k → 14%RIMON CLUB: $3k → 7%HEART OF ISRAEL FOUNDATION: $2k → 6%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ALERET COHANIM: $1k → 17%CLUB Z: $2k → 7%CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL: $1k → 6%CHABAD: $1k → 7%CHABAD: $500 → 7%CHABAD OF REDWOOD CITY: $500 → 7%CHABAD: $316 → 7%ALEX MACHOTKIN: $100 → 7%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.

58%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$202k · 8 repeat orgs$145k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +145% since the first grant, against +110% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
23

Total granted

$202k
$140k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+145%
+110%

Still filing today

38%
17%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
InternationalReligionPhilanthropyRecreation & SportsEducationOther
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

  • CF
    Central Fund of Israel
    7× · 2017–2025 · $162k · revenue +145%
  • RC
    Rimon Club Z DBA Club Z
    2× · 2017–2022 · $5k · revenue ×15
  • PU
    PRAGER UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
    2× · 2021–2022 · $50 · revenue +35%

Funded once

  • GE
    Gush Etzion Foundation % Juliette Landesmangraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $62k · revenue +699% · 26% of their budget
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $50k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $7k
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, 2017–2025.

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. 7 of the 32 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
7/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Central Fund of Israel: $161,900 · InternationalCentral Fund of IsraelGush Etzion Foundation % Juliette Landesman: $61,900 · InternationalGush Etzion Foundation % Juliette Landesman+1 more: $1,000 · InternationalIndividual grant recipient: $50,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientKUMAH INC: $25,003 · OtherKUMAH INCIndividual grant recipient: $7,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientBAT AYIN FOUNDATION: $5,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $5,000 · OtherHEART OF ISRAEL FOUNDATION: $4,800 · Other+19 more: $19,901 · Other+19 moreRimon Club Z DBA Club Z: $4,613 · ReligionHEBRON FUND INC: $500 · PhilanthropyMAGICAL BRIDGE FOUNDATION: $300 · Recreation & SportsPRAGER UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $50 · Education
International$224,800Other$117,204Religion$4,613Philanthropy$500Recreation & Sports$300Education$50

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCentral Fund of Israel: $161,900 over 7y, 0.2% of budgetGush Etzion Foundation % Juliette Landesman: $61,900 over 1y, 26% of budgetRimon Club Z DBA Club Z: $4,613 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetHEBRON FUND INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMAGICAL BRIDGE FOUNDATION: $300 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPRAGER UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $50 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 Central Fund of Israel ↗
  • Who funds Gush Etzion Foundation % Juliette Landesman ↗
  • Who funds Rimon Club Z DBA Club Z ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ATERET COHANIM INC ↗
  • Who funds HEBRON FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds MAGICAL BRIDGE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds PRAGER UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗

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 FundNY13.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Valera Fooksman Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Valera Fooksman Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%2%8%17%30%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, FY20–25
    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.

    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 32 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 Valera Fooksman’s filings →

    More from the funding graph