· Public charity
Chabad on Campus International Inc
Our vision is to champion robust jewish life and learning on college campuses around the world.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 170 grants below total $6,310,635 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $8,559,282 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $2,248,647 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k31 grants · $235k
- $10k–50k117 grants · $2.9M
- $50k–250k20 grants · $1.6M
- $250k+2 grants · $1.6M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| JEWISH LEARNING INSTITUTE | $1,114,308 |
| FEDERATION OF JEWISH COMM CIS | $462,963 |
| CHABAD AT ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY | $169,228 |
| CHABAD AT UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA | $148,856 |
| CHABAD OF THE UNDERGRADS | $115,832 |
| CHABAD OF TULANE | $103,127 |
| CHABAD OF CHAMPAIGN-URBANA NFP | $102,668 |
| CHABAD AT UNIV OF MIA - UNDERGRAD | $102,140 |
| CHABAD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN | $94,939 |
| CHABAD JEWISH STUDENT CENTER AT UCB | $93,173 |
| JEWISH HERITAGE PROGRAM | $82,194 |
| FRIENDS OF CHABAD ON CAMPUS INC | $67,016 |
| CHABAD HOUSE AT UCLA | $63,164 |
| CHABAD OF BLOOMINGTON INC | $59,791 |
| CHABAD OF QUEENS COLLEGE INC DBA CHABAD ON CAMPUS OF QUEENS | $58,599 |
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 (FY20–25, $123k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
229 repeat relationships — 142 still active in FY2025, 87 since wound down; 23 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $346k 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
- JHJewish Heritage Programs5× · 2017–2025 · $257k · revenue +3%
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF LUBAVITCH3× · 2023–2025 · $105k · revenue +8%
- CSCHABAD STUDENT CENTER AT UofM3× · 2023–2025 · $70k · revenue +53%
Funded once
- INIsrael Next Generation INCone grant, 2024 · $250k · revenue 0%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2019 · $55k
- COCHABAD OF BINGHAMTONone grant, 2023 · $45k
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 unaffiliated Jews with information and the ability to learn about their heritage.
servicing the stamford Jewish community with religious and education programs
Organized lectures, symposiums, attended conference, donations of books to libraries. To promote jewish education.
To educate jewish students based on chabad chassidic philosophy, advance their understanding of jewish ideas and foster their jewishness.
Operates a religious outreach center which provides for the needs of the memebrs of the local Jewish community. Arranges classes, lectures, holiday programs and clergy services.
Chabad of Bensonhurst Inc is an organization dedicated to furthering the religious, educational, and charitable needs of the Jewish Community.
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.
To provide secondary high school education in Brooklyn, NY
Chabad of River North and Fulton Market is an organization dedicated to furthering the religious, educational, and chartable needs of the Jewish Community and /or of the neighbors of River North and Fulton Market.
encourage and facilitate the observance of traditional orthodox Jewish practices around the world.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chabad Jewish Center and the most unlike its peers is Friends of Am Olam. 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) — 11% of your grantees by number, and just 7% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
16 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. 16 of the 342 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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.
Open a dossier: Rebbe's Partnership Foundation · Israel on Campus Coalition Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Kolel Torah Inc · Nash Charity Foundation Inc · Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta Inc · Greater Miami Jewish Federation Inc · The Rav-Noy Family Foundation Inc · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Seed the Dream Foundation · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · Huberfeld Family 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 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.
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 Chabad on Campus International Inc?
Find your warmest path to Chabad on Campus International Inc 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.