· Public charity
American Committee for the Education and Welfare of Jews
The mission is to benefit an indefinite class of individuals who are either poor, distressed,and under privileged or come from broken homes.the organizaton activities include: financing the organization and operation of educational and religious projects in needy communities by subsidizing their capital and operating budgets,providing…
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 58% of AMERICAN COMMITTEE FOR THE EDUCATION AND WELFARE OF JEWS’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2023
- Under $10k3 grants · $24k
- $10k–50k7 grants · $136k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $548k
- $250k+1 grant · $676k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| YAD YISROEL | $675,901 |
| WHITE FORREST JEWISH COMMUNITIES | $200,000 |
| TIKVA | $102,500 |
| BEIS AHARON V'YISRAEL | $62,121 |
| VAAD HATZOLAS NIDCHEI YISROEL | $61,900 |
| CHAMAH INTERNATIONAL | $61,300 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THORAJT CHAIM | $60,000 |
| MITZVA FOR UKRAINE | $33,240 |
| OPEN CURTAIN | $25,000 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MESHI | $20,000 |
| KNESST SIMCHA | $20,000 |
| SPARKS OF DAAS INC | $17,670 |
| CONGREGATION OHR CHAIM | $10,000 |
| VLNY OF BMBY | $10,000 |
| RAJE-USA INC | $9,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY23–23, $9k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +24% since the first grant, against +24% for the ones you funded once.
7 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2023, 1 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2023, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $434k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- YYYAD YISROEL6× · 2017–2023 · $1.9M · revenue +15%
- TCTIKVA CORP6× · 2017–2023 · $986k · revenue +51%
- VLVAAD L 'HATZOLAS NIDCHEI YISROEL INC6× · 2017–2023 · $360k · revenue +24% · 28% of their budget
Funded once
- FOFUND OF RUSSIAN SPEAKING JEWS INC4× · 2017–2020 · $101k
- COCONGREGATION ORACH CHAIMone grant, 2021 · $60k
The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee Inc2× · 2019–2020 · $18k · revenue +24%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To provide religious Jewish education to Kishinev Jewry
To support religious, charitable, scientific, literary and/or educational programs
Support of religious schools in Israel
To aid the poor and beedy with food, clothing abd spiritual gudiance
To facilitate and provide support for Jewish religious, educational, as well as charitable activities in Kharkov, Ukraine, for its Jewish community and for its refugees.
The organization will provide financial assistance to educational institutions that promote the observance of the jewish religion, its laws and traditions, and sacred texts, including yeshivat nachalat yossef, located in jerusalem, israel.
Promotion of orthodox jewish education.
American friends of Tiferet David-Ostrova Biale's purpose is to support the charitable and communal efforts of the Ostrova Biala Rebbed Avidshlit'a in Israel and in the United States.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of the Kiev Jewish Community and the most unlike its peers is Sparks of Daas Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 28 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund close more than the field — 14% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
14 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 14 of the 22 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds YAD YISROEL ↗
- Who funds TIKVA CORP ↗
- Who funds VAAD L 'HATZOLAS NIDCHEI YISROEL INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THORAT CHAJM INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE KIEV JEWISH COMMUNITY ↗
- Who funds FUND OF RUSSIAN SPEAKING JEWS INC ↗
- Who funds Beis Aharon VYisroel Inc DBA American Friends of Here Next Year ↗
- Who funds SPARKS OF DAAS INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ANATEVKA INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MESHI INC ↗
- Who funds The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee Inc ↗
- Who funds RAJE-USA INC ↗
- Who funds Federation of Jewish Communities of Ukraine INC ↗
- Who funds AGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · Alyad Foundation Inc · Agudath Israel of America · Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · The Koum Family Foundation · Partners in Giving Inc · Morasha Olami Inc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization American Committee for the Education and Welfare of Jews funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to American Committee for the Education and Welfare of Jews?
Find your warmest path to American Committee for the Education and Welfare of Jews 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.