Skip to content
Albert & Lucille Delighter & Marcella Winston Foundation at a glance

· Public charity

Albert & Lucille Delighter & Marcella Winston Foundation

The foundation is organized and shall be operated exclusively for charitable, educational or religious purposes by conducting or supporting activities for the benefit of or to carry out the purposes of the jewish federation of metropolitan chicago ("the federation") and specifically for the purpose of providing housing and support for…

$8.0M
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$4.8M
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, FY2021 to 2025.

Philanthropy$28MHuman Services$13MFood & Nutrition$265kReligion$186kHealth$150k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k6 grants · $515k
  • $250k+3 grants · $7.5M
$125,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$141M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
JEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO$4,820,000
COUNCIL FOR JEWISH ELDERLY$2,275,500
JEWISH FEDERATION OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO$375,000
JEWISH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES$175,000
THE ARK$125,000
JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERS OF CHICAGO$60,000
MAOT CHITIM OF GREATER CHICAGO$55,000
SELFHELP HOME$50,000
CANCER WELLNESS CENTER$50,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–25, $13.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%Selfhelp Home: $75k → 14%Selfhelp Home: $75k → 14%Selfhelp Home: $50k → 14%SELFHELP HOME: $50k → 14%SELFHELP HOME: $50k → 14%JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERS OF CHICAGO: $60k → 14%JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERS OF CHICAGO: $60k → 14%Jewish Community Centers of Chicago: $60k → 14%Jewish Child and Family Services: $175k → 14%JEWISH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES: $175k → 14%JEWISH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES: $175k → 14%Jewish Child and Family Services: $170k → 14%Jewish Child and Family Services: $160k → 14%Jewish Community Centers of Chicago: $50k → 14%Jewish Community Centers of Chicago: $40k → 14%CJE Senior Life: $2.4M → 14%CJE Senior Life: $2.3M → 14%COUNCIL FOR JEWISH ELDERLY: $2.3M → 14%COUNCIL FOR JEWISH ELDERLY: $2.3M → 14%Council for Jewish Elderly: $2.2M → 14%THE ARK: $125k → 14%The ARK: $125k → 14%THE ARK: $125k → 14%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$36M · 9 repeat orgs$11k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +24% since the first grant, against +10% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
2

Total granted

$36M
$11k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+24%
+10%

Still filing today

89%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesPhilanthropyFood & NutritionHealthReligionOther
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

  • JU
    JEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO
    5× · 2021–2025 · $22M · revenue +33%
  • JC
    Jewish Child and Family Services
    5× · 2021–2025 · $855k · revenue +6%
  • TA
    THE ARK
    3× · 2023–2025 · $375k · revenue +24%

Funded once

  • CR
    CHICAGO RABBINICAL COUNCIL
    one grant, 2023 · $6k · revenue +10%
  • CB
    Chicago Board of Rabbis
    one grant, 2022 · $5k
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

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Jewish Vocational Service & Employment Center

Since 1884, Jewish Vocational Services (JVS) Chicago has been committed to improving life through employment and productivity, recognizing that personal development is a lifetime endeavor. JVS Chicago serves more than 2,300 employees,…

—
2
Jewish Family Services of Greenwich

Jewish family services of greenwich (jfs) is a nonprofit social service agency dedicated to strengthening individuals and families in fairfield and new london counties. jfs provides behavioral health counseling, food security programs,…

—
3
Jewish Community Centers of Greater Boston

To advance the aspirations of families and individuals to enrich their lives, bodies and spirits, by providing the best in contemporary programs and experiences, informed by jewish values for today's jews and the people in their lives.

Human Services
4
Champaign-Urbana Jewish Federation

The federation supports a variety of jewish projects and causes with the goals of fostering meaningful and vibrant jewish life at home and abroad and assisting broader humanitarian activities.

Religion
5
Jewish Family Service

Mission: Inspired by their history and values, Jewish Family Service supports the needs of Jewish individuals and families, refugees and immigrants, and the broader community to achieve well-being, health, and stability. From food security…

Human Services
6
True Chicago
Arts & Culture
7
National Council of Jewish Women Inc Jersey Hills Section
—
8
The Jewish Community Center in Manhattan Inc

Together with our community, jcc manhattan creates opportunities for people to connect, grow, and learn within an ever-changing jewish landscape.

Human Services
9
Jewish Family & Childrens Services of Greater Mercer County Inc

JFCS strengthens individuals and families by empowering people to care for themselves and others. This is accomplished through a wide range of high quality social services and programs designed to assist families with many of life's…

Human Services
10
Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta Inc

The jewish federation of greater atlanta cares for, connects and strengthens our jewish community throughout greater atlanta, israel and the world.

Philanthropy
11
Eastern European Jewish Heritage Foundation
Philanthropy
12
Foundation for Cincinnati Jewish Seniors formerly Jewish Home of Cincinnati Inc
Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Child and Family Services; the most unlike its peers is Maot Chitim of Greater Chicago Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

10 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. 10 of the 12 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)
10/10
Grantees still filing
9/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO: $22,212,500 · PhilanthropyJEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGOJEWISH FEDERATION OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO: $5,785,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FEDERATION OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGOCOUNCIL FOR JEWISH ELDERLY: $11,497,096 · Human ServicesCOUNCIL FOR JEWISH ELDERLYJewish Child and Family Services: $855,000 · Human ServicesJewish Child and Family Services+3 more: $945,000 · Human Services+3 moreMAOT CHITIM OF GREATER CHICAGO INC: $265,000 · Food & NutritionThe ARK: $175,000 · Other+1 more: $5,000 · OtherCANCER WELLNESS CENTER: $150,000 · HealthCHICAGO RABBINICAL COUNCIL: $6,000 · Religion
Philanthropy$27,997,500Human Services$13,297,096Food & Nutrition$265,000Other$180,000Health$150,000Religion$6,000

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 budgetJEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO: $22,212,500 over 5y, 3.7% of budgetCOUNCIL FOR JEWISH ELDERLY: $11,497,096 over 5y, 4.2% of budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO: $5,785,000 over 5y, 2.5% of budgetJewish Child and Family Services: $855,000 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetTHE ARK: $375,000 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetTHE SELFHELP HOME INC: $300,000 over 5y, 0.6% of budgetJewish Community Centers of Chicago: $270,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetMAOT CHITIM OF GREATER CHICAGO INC: $265,000 over 5y, 4.5% of budgetCANCER WELLNESS CENTER: $150,000 over 3y, 2.2% of budgetCHICAGO RABBINICAL COUNCIL: $6,000 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.

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Fidelity Investments …
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Albert & Lucille Delighter & Marcella Winston Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Albert & Lucille Delighter & Marcella Winston Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 Albert & Lucille Delighter & Marcella Winston Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Albert & Lucille Delighter & Marcella Winston Foundation 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 12 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 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 Albert & Lucille Delighter & Marcella Winston’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