Loading…
· Public charity
CHABAD ON CAMPUS INTERNATIONAL INC
To support the vibrancy and growth of jewish student life on campus through the sustainability and success of campus chabad houses worldwide.
$7.5M
Granted FY2024
154
Grants
35
Communities
$849k
Largest
01What you fund
01
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 86% of CHABAD ON CAMPUS INTERNATIONAL INC’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2019
awarenessuniversecurityjewisunivrohr jewtulane
2020
rabbieducationalhamiltonstudentsjudaismrohrlubavitch
2021
—
2022
awarenesscypeducationjudaismculturalreligiouseducational
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2024 · 154 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k23 grants · $164k
- $10k–50k109 grants · $2.6M
- $50k–250k19 grants · $1.7M
- $250k+3 grants · $1.6M
$21,830
Median grant
35
States reached
$9.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
- Jewish Learning Institute$849,003
- Federation of Jewish Comm CIS$470,000
- Israel Next Generation lnc$250,000
- Chabad at the University of Arizona$170,507
- Chabad at University of Central Florida$145,056
- Chabad of the Undergrads$130,092
- The Chabad House at Brandeis$127,882
- Chabad of Champaign-Urbana Nfp$112,483
- Chabad of Tulane$102,320
- Chabad at the University of Wisconsin$102,171
- Chabad at the University of South Florida$89,054
- CHABAD OF THE GABLES INC$79,005
- Chabad at Ku Inc$71,318
- Chabad Jewish Student Center at UC Berkeley$65,682
- Chabad House at Harvard$65,405
02The need
04
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 (FY20–24, $87k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18% — the area typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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 line in 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, United Way ALICE — 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.
86%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$14M · 213 repeat orgs$2.4M to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +72% since the first grant, against +67% for the ones you funded once.
213 repeat relationships — 129 still active in FY2024, 84 since wound down; 23 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
213
89
Total granted
$14M
$1.0M
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+72%
+67%
Still filing today
2%
1%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.4M went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
ReligionPhilanthropyHuman ServicesEducationYouth DevelopmentInternationalOther
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
- FOFederation of Jewish Communities of the CIS3× · 2022–2024 · $1.4M · revenue +36%
- CGChabad GW2× · 2023–2024 · $72k · revenue +77%
- LHLubavitch House at University of Penn5× · 2020–2024 · $46k · revenue +1%
Funded once
- SCSecurity Community Networkone grant, 2019 · $55k
- COChabad of Binghamtonone grant, 2023 · $45k
- PCPSJews Chabad of Undergradone grant, 2019 · $36k
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
University of Judaism Foundation
—
2
Rabbinical Organization - Chabad Lubavitch Inc
Organized lectures, symposiums, attended conference, donations of books to libraries. To promote jewish education.
Religion
3
Jewish Graduate Student Initiative
Provide jewish cultural programming for graduate students and young professionals.
Education
4
Sephardic College for Rabbinic and
The organization's primary purpose is to train sephardic jewish individuals to become rabbis and teachers and to disseminate judaic and talmudic teachings.
Religion
5
Chabad Lametayel Inc
encourage and facilitate the observance of traditional orthodox Jewish practices around the world.
—
6
Chabad of Bensonhurst Inc
Chabad of Bensonhurst Inc is an organization dedicated to furthering the religious, educational, and charitable needs of the Jewish Community.
—
7
Chabad of Columbia University
To educate jewish students based on chabad chassidic philosophy, advance their understanding of jewish ideas and foster their jewishness.
—
8
The Contemporary Jewish Museum
Makes the diversity of jewish experience relevant through art & programs that challenge & inspire.
Arts & Culture
9
Congregation Jewish Spiritual Shabbas
Religion
10
Friends of Mesivta Lubavitch Toronto Inc
A charitable and educational organization that helps bring unaffiliated Jews closer to their religion and practice by organizing Jewish studies
Religion
11
Minyan Oneg Shabbat
Religious and educational services
Religion
12
Ccf New York Jewish French Community Center of Ny Inc
To further French Jewish Culture, help integration of American in France and French in USA concerning Jewish Culture
Religion
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chabad At the University of Wisconsin Inc and the most unlike its peers is Lubavitch House At Penn 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 12 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 7% of your money.
Closures · last 5 years
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.
orgs you fund
0.0%0/174
the rest of the field
11%
206,164/1,819,391
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.
05the grantee network
13 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/13
Grantees still filing
8/13
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$14,573,683Philanthropy$1,453,750Religion$436,309Youth Development$250,000Human Services$86,989International$72,071Education$52,914
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.
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.
Rebbe's Partnership FoundationNY41.6× affinity18 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Rebbe's Partnership Foundation · Israel on Campus Coalition · Jewish Communal Fund · Kolel Torah Inc · Jewish Federation of Greater · Nash Charity Foundation Inc · Seed the Dream Foundation · Greater Miami Jewish Federation Inc · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Jewish Community Foundation of Greater Metrowest Nj · Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Inc
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 organisation CHABAD ON CAMPUS INTERNATIONAL INC 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.
2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
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. 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
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: Lubavitch House at University of Penn.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
high risk
~0 months of operating runway; revenue held over 7 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
7 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 202662152 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on Lubavitch House at University of Penn, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 0 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue held over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 8% of their budget — diversified.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Chabad on Campus International Inc?
Find your warmest path to Chabad on Campus International Inc through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines