Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Bnai Brith Foundation of the United States

The mission of the b'nai b'rith foundation is to operate a charitable "endowment" fund to support b'nai b'rith's national charities and non-related charities.

$802k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$647k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20212025.

International$7.6MReligion$266kEducation$80kYouth Development$70k
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $136k
  • $250k+1 grant · $647k
$18,094
Median grant
3
States reached
$11M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
B'NAI B'RITH INTERNATIONAL$646,775
AMERICANS FOR BEN-GURION UNIVERSITY$40,000
HILLEL FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH LIFE$35,925
TEXAS HILLEL FOUNDATION$18,094
BBYO INC$15,205
TEXAS A&M HILLEL FOUNDATION$13,467
HOUSTON HILLEL INC$13,304
HILLEL OF NORTH TEXAS$5,784
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:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 99% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%AMERICANS FOR BEN-GURION UNIVERSITY: $40k → 17%TEXAS HILLEL FOUNDATION: $20k → 10%HILLEL OF NORTH TEXAS: $6k → 14%HOUSTON HILLEL INC: $15k → 16%TEXAS A&M HILLEL FOUNDATION: $15k → 22%HILLEL FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH LIFE: $36k → 14%AMERICANS FOR BEN-GURION UNIVERSITY: $40k → 17%TEXAS HILLEL FOUNDATION: $18k → 10%HILLEL OF NORTH TEXAS: $6k → 14%HOUSTON HILLEL INC: $13k → 16%TEXAS A&M HILLEL FOUNDATION: $13k → 22%BBYO INC: $17k → 14%TEXAS HILLEL FOUNDATION: $17k → 10%HILLEL OF NORTH TEXAS: $6k → 14%HOUSTON HILLEL INC: $13k → 16%TEXAS A&M HILLEL FOUNDATION: $13k → 22%BBYO INC: $15k → 14%TEXAS HILLEL FOUNDATION: $16k → 10%HILLEL OF NORTH TEXAS: $5k → 14%HOUSTON HILLEL INC: $12k → 16%TEXAS A&M HILLEL FOUNDATION: $12k → 22%BBYO INC: $15k → 14%TEXAS HILLEL: $10k → 10%HILLEL FOUNDATION OF GREATER HOUSTON: $10k → 16%TEXAS A&M HILLEL: $10k → 22%BBYO INC: $13k → 14%BBYO INC: $10k → 16%B'NAI B'RITH INTERNATIONAL: $6.2M → 14%B'NAI B'RITH INTERNATIONAL: $647k → 14%B'NAI B'RITH INTERNATIONAL: $300k → 14%B'NAI B'RITH INTERNATIONAL: $266k → 14%B'NAI B'RITH: $183k → 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.

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.

04

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 95% of Bnai Brith Foundation of the United States’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 96% of the giving stays in DC; read by stated purpose it is 1% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.

Bnai Brith Foundation of the United Stateslessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address

Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$8.0M · 7 repeat orgs$36k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +50% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.

7 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
1

Total granted

$8.0M
$36k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+50%
0%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $36k 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
ReligionYouth DevelopmentEducationOther

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

  • TH
    TEXAS HILLEL FOUNDATION
    5× · 2021–2025 · $92k · revenue +8%
  • BB
    B'NAI B'RITH YOUTH ORGANIZATION
    5× · 2021–2025 · $70k · revenue +61%
  • HH
    Houston Hillel
    5× · 2021–2025 · $63k · revenue +102%

Funded once

  • HILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE
    one grant, 2025 · $36k · 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
Hillel At Florida International University

Enrich the lives of jewish students

2
Hillel of Dallas

To enrich the lives of jewish students and young adults in the dallas area so they may enrich the jewish people around the world and to provide opportunities to explore and celebrate their jewish identities.

3
The University of Iowa Louis Shulman Hillel Foundation

The mission of Iowa Hillel is to enhance the lives of Jewish students at the University of Iowa, so they may enrich the Jewish people and the world. Iowa Hillel envisions a world for our students where they find a community here at Iowa…

4
Hillel Foundation at Miami University

Hillel at Miami University, the center of Jewish life on campus, seeks to engage, connect, and empower students to explore their Jewish identity creating a vibrant Jewish community and inspiring the next generation of Jewish leaders.

5
Hillel the Foundation for Jewish Campus Life

social, religious, cultural programs for Jewish students at Bradley University

6
Hillel the Foundation for Jewish Campus Life

Tulane hillel serves as a jewish resource on the tulane university campus in new orleans. tulane hillel creates a radically inclusive community, develops students' leadership, and encourages curiosity through our jewish values.

7
Minnesota Hillel

To enrich the lives of students so they may enrich the jewish community and the world.

8
American University Hillel Inc

To enrich the lives of Jewish students so that they may enrich the Jewish people and the world.

9
Texas Jewish Security Initiative
Crime & Legal
10
Hillel the Foundation for Jewish Campus Life

Enriching the lives of Jewish students and staff at Arizona State University through dynamic and innovative programming which deepens understanding of and creates excitement for Jewish life SO THEY MAY ENRICH THE JEWISH PEOPLE, ISRAEL AND…

11
Hillel the Foundation for Jewish Campus Life

Hillel of Colorado seeks to engage, empower, and work with Jewish college students to create Jewish communities at University of Denver, Colorado State University, Auraria Campus, Colorado School of Mines and other front range…

12
B'nai Brith Hillel Foundation At Princeton

Cjl partners with students and other members of the princeton community to sustain and grow a welcoming, multi-faceted and pluralistic jewish community that is fully-integrated into the fabric of campus life and which provides personally…

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas Hillel Foundation and the most unlike its peers is The Hillel at Texas a&M. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

05the 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

B NAI B RITH — $7,641,055 · OtherB NAI B RITH+3 more — $167,670 · OtherHouston Hillel — $62,872 · ReligionHILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE — $35,925 · ReligionAMERICANS FOR BEN-GURION UNIVERSITY INC — $80,000 · EducationB'NAI B'RITH YOUTH ORGANIZATION — $70,397 · Youth Development
Other$7,808,725Religion$98,797Education$80,000Youth Development$70,397

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetB NAI B RITH — $7,641,055 over 5y, 45% of budgetTEXAS HILLEL FOUNDATION — $91,536 over 5y, 1.8% of budgetAMERICANS FOR BEN-GURION UNIVERSITY INC — $80,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetB'NAI B'RITH YOUTH ORGANIZATION — $70,397 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetHouston Hillel — $62,872 over 5y, 2.7% of budgetThe Hillel at Texas A&M — $53,146 over 4y, 4.2% of budgetHILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE — $35,925 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHILLELS OF NORTH TEXAS — $22,988 over 4y, 4.2% 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.

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.

Hillel the Foundation for Jewish Campus LifeDC13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Hillel the Foundation for Jewish Campus Life

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 Bnai Brith Foundation of the United States 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%your share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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.

    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 8 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph