Skip to content
Applebaum Family Support Foundation at a glance

· Public charity

Applebaum Family Support Foundation

To support the jewish community and community as a whole.

$805k
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$150k
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, FY2022 to 2025.

Health$5.3MEducation$880kHuman Services$200kInternational$185kPhilanthropy$100kArts & Culture$100kRecreation & Sports$50kEmployment$35kOther$0
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $95k
  • $50k–250k8 grants · $710k
$50,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$1.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BEAUMONT HEALTH FOUNDATION$150,000
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN$125,000
DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUE INC$100,000
HENRY FORD$100,000
JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF DETROIT$75,000
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY$60,000
FRESH AIR SOCIETY - TAMARACK CAMPS$50,000
HAROLD GRINSPOON FOUNDATION$50,000
GESHER HUMAN SERVICES$35,000
JARC$30,000
JEWISH SENIOR LIFE OF METRO DETROIT$10,000
CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL$10,000
JEWISH HOSPICE & CHAPLAINCY NETWORK$10,000
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 (FY24–25, $230k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF DETROIT: $75k → 8%JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF DETROIT: $75k → 8%JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF DETROIT: $50k → 8%JARC: $30k → 8%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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.2M · 8 repeat orgs$610k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
3

Total granted

$4.2M
$325k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+6%
+9%

Still filing today

75%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $285k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthInternationalEducationReligionCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc
    4× · 2022–2025 · $850k · revenue +47%
  • JF
    JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE
    2× · 2024–2025 · $150k · revenue +6%
  • JH
    JEWISH HOSPICE & CHAPLAINCY NETWORK
    2× · 2024–2025 · $60k · revenue +47%

Funded once

  • MG
    MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED
    one grant, 2022 · $250k
  • JC
    JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT
    one grant, 2024 · $50k · revenue -21%
  • NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN INCORPORATED
    one grant, 2024 · $25k · revenue +9%
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
The Jewish Fund

The jewish fund is organized and operates exclusively for charitable, educational, and religious purposes. the fund's primary activities are: supporting a jewish health care mission in the greater detroit area and michigan; promotion of…

Philanthropy
2
Minneapolis Jewish Federation

Minneapolis jewish federation is a nonprofit organization that promotes a culture of philanthropy, leverages resources to meet local and global jewish needs, and facilitates community planning to ensure a thriving and secure future.

Philanthropy
3
United Jewish Foundation

The united jewish foundation of detroit owns, manages and invests jewish communal assets, including general and endowment funds, agency endowments, supporting foundations and real property. the foundation is committed to ensuring that…

Philanthropy
4
Jewish Federation Council of Greater La

Based on jewish values, the jewish federation of greater los angeles convenes and leads the community and leverages its resources to assure the continuity of the jewish people, support a secure state of israel, care for jews in need here…

Philanthropy
5
Long Island Jewish Medical Center

Long island jewish medical center is part of the northwell health ("northwell"), which strives to improve the health of the communities it serves and is committed to providing the highest quality clinical care; educating the current and…

Health
6
Chelsea Jewish Lifecare Inc

The organization's mission is to manage a continuum of senior care business lines that consistently provide high-quality compassionate care while focusing on the development of innovative programs and services that enable individuals to…

Health
7
Metropolitan Jewish Health System Inc

Mjhs health system is a charitable not-for-profit established to support the activities of affiliated organizations. mjhs is built on the core values of compassion, dignity and respect, first established by the four brooklyn ladies in…

Health
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
The Jewish Agency for Israel

The jewish agency binds jews across ideologies and civilizations together in a worldwide jewish family with israel at its center. it provides the global framework for aliyah, ensures global jewish safety, strengthens jewish identity and…

—
10
Jewish Community Relations Council of Indianapolis

The Jewish Community Relations Council is the public affairs arm of the organized Jewish community, building consensus on issues of concern, and then communicating those interests to policy makers, faith and ethnic communities, civic…

—
11
University of Judaism Foundation
—
12
Jewish Communal Fund

To facilitate and promote philanthropy through donor advised funds.

Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Federation of Detroit; the most unlike its peers is Dana-Farber Cancer Institute 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

16 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. 16 of the 20 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
6/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BEAUMONT HEALTH FOUNDATION: $2,050,000 · HealthBEAUMONT HEALTH FOUNDATIONMAYO CLINIC: $2,000,000 · HealthMAYO CLINICDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $850,000 · HealthDana-Farber Cancer Institute IncREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $470,000 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIV…MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED: $250,000 · OtherMASS GENERAL BRIGHA…WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY: $210,000 · OtherWAYNE STATE UNIVERS…THE HAROLD GRINSPOON FOUNDATION: $50,000 · OtherJEWISH FEDERATION OF DETROIT: $50,000 · OtherFRESH AIR SOCIETY: $50,000 · Other+3 more: $70,000 · Other+3 moreJEWISH FAMILY SERVICE: $150,000 · Human ServicesJEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT: $50,000 · Human ServicesJARC: $30,000 · Human ServicesMICHIGAN EDUCATION EXCELLENCE FOUNDATION: $200,000 · EducationThe American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee Inc: $175,000 · InternationalCentral Fund of Israel: $10,000 · InternationalTHE EDISON INSTITUTE INC: $100,000 · Arts & CultureJEWISH HOSPICE & CHAPLAINCY NETWORK: $60,000 · Religion
Health$4,900,000Other$1,150,000Human Services$230,000Education$200,000International$185,000Arts & Culture$100,000Religion$60,000

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 budgetBEAUMONT HEALTH FOUNDATION: $2,050,000 over 4y, 4.5% of budgetMAYO CLINIC: $2,000,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $850,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetMICHIGAN EDUCATION EXCELLENCE FOUNDATION: $200,000 over 2y, 29% of budgetThe American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee Inc: $175,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH FAMILY SERVICE: $150,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetJEWISH HOSPICE & CHAPLAINCY NETWORK: $60,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetTHE HAROLD GRINSPOON FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT: $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF DETROIT: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFRESH AIR SOCIETY: $50,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetGESHER HUMAN SERVICES: $35,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetJARC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetNATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN INCORPORATED: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCentral Fund of Israel: $10,000 over 1y, 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.

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.

Community Foundation …The Eugene Applebaum …United Jewish Foundat…The Ravitz FoundationThe Jewish FundJewish Federation of …The Ralph C Wilson Jr…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Community Foundation for Southeast MichiganMI17.4× affinity6 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · The Eugene Applebaum Family Foundation · United Jewish Foundation · The Ravitz Foundation · The Jewish Fund · Jewish Federation of Detroit · The Ralph C Wilson Jr Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Applebaum Family Support Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Applebaum Family Support Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
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 Applebaum Family Support Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Applebaum Family Support 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 20 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 Applebaum Family Support’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