Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

Ann Lavon 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.

$33k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What you fund
0190% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20192024.

Religion$225kFood & Nutrition$83kEducation$29kArts & Culture$10kYouth Development$8kHuman Services$7kHealth$3kOther$0
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k4 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
$8,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$19k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHICAGO COMMUNITY KOLLEL - 320$10,000
CHICAGO COMMUNITY KOLLEL$10,000
AM FRDS KOLLEL TIFERES YISREL 319$8,000
Individual grant recipient$3,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
AM FRDS OF MIDGAL TORAH 320$1,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY21–22, $4k) 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 your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%CHICAGO CHESED FUND: $3k → 14%CHICAGO CHESED FUND: $600 → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

Which US states your grants reach

IL
WI
NY
IN
NJ
MD
GA
FL

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

62%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$253k · 14 repeat orgs$153k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 13 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
29

Total granted

$253k
$130k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+27%
+34%

Still filing today

29%
10%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 30% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $23k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24
PhilanthropyEducationReligionHuman ServicesInternationalHealthOther

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

  • SB
    SOUTH BEND HEBREW DAY SCHOOL INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $29k · revenue +27%
  • CY
    CONG YESHIVA LOMZA
    2× · 2019–2022 · $23k · revenue +18%
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MIGDAL TORAH INC
    2× · 2020–2022 · $10k · revenue +112%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $25k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2019 · $8k
  • AY
    American Yedidim Inc
    one grant, 2023 · $8k · revenue 0%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Zohar Hatorah Inc

Religious School

Religion
2
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

3
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
4
Friends of Zichron Meir Inc Friends of Zichron Meir

To support talmud torah zichron meir, a school in israel

Philanthropy
5
Yeshiva Yesodei Hachaim

To provide secondary high school education in Brooklyn, NY

6
Friends of Tzeirei Chabad in Israel Inc

To pursue a greater outreach of knowledge of the Jewish Torah and to further educate the less knowledgeable

Religion
7
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
8
Zichron Moshe Elihu Tzedoka Fund
Philanthropy
9
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
10
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
11
Chabad Lametayel Inc

encourage and facilitate the observance of traditional orthodox Jewish practices around the world.

12
American Friends of Hasheveinu Aylecha of Mt Zion Inc

Teaching teen-age jewish boys practical religious observance and religious philosophy.

Religion

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tomchei Tzedaka Corp and the most unlike its peers is Hatzalah Chicago. 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

8 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 48 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

CHICAGO COMMUNITY KOLLEL INC — $95,200 · OtherCHICAGO COMMUNITY KOLLEL INCIndividual grant recipient — $25,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientNEFESH HACHAIM INC — $18,500 · OtherNEFESH HACHAIM INCIndividual grant recipient — $17,300 · OtherYISRAELINK — $12,500 · Other+37 more — $170,050 · Other+37 moreSOUTH BEND HEBREW DAY SCHOOL INC — $29,000 · EducationCONG YESHIVA LOMZA — $22,500 · PhilanthropyAmerican Yedidim Inc — $8,000 · InternationalCHICAGO CHESED FUND — $3,600 · Human ServicesHATZALAH CHICAGO — $3,000 · HealthTOMCHEI TZEDAKA CORP — $1,000 · Religion
Other$338,550Education$29,000Philanthropy$22,500International$8,000Human Services$3,600Health$3,000Religion$1,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetSOUTH BEND HEBREW DAY SCHOOL INC — $29,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetCONG YESHIVA LOMZA — $22,500 over 2y, 10% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MIGDAL TORAH INC — $10,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetAmerican Yedidim Inc — $8,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetCHICAGO CHESED FUND — $3,600 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHATZALAH CHICAGO — $3,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetZICHRON TZVI ELIMELECH — $2,800 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTOMCHEI TZEDAKA CORP — $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
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 SOUTH BEND HEBREW DAY SCHOOL INC
  • Who funds CONG YESHIVA LOMZA
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MIGDAL TORAH INC
  • Who funds American Yedidim Inc
  • Who funds CHICAGO CHESED FUND
  • Who funds HATZALAH CHICAGO
  • Who funds ZICHRON TZVI ELIMELECH

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.

Todd a and Raphaela Stern Family FoundationIL19.9× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Todd a and Raphaela Stern Family Foundation · Aj & Sl Stern Family Foundation · Jewish Communal Fund · Bitton Family Foundation Inc · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · The Ojc Fund · Zichron Btz Tzedakah Foundation · The Dennis Berman Family Foundation Inc · The Jmg Foundation · Alice G Hanson Family Foundation · The Tzedakah Fund · The Ohr Hakotel Foundation

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 Ann Lavon Foundation 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.

2022
202122232425
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%your share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get 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 · 0–50%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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.

    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Ann Lavon Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Ann Lavon 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 48 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph