· Community foundation
Federation of Jewish Communities of the Cis Inc
To provide humanitarian aid and jewish education, organize and provide cultural events and religious services, and help develop jewish communities and rebuild jewish institutions, in russia, the former soviet union, and elsewhere.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2023–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 14 grants below total $22,207,608 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $52,300,024 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $30,092,416 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 $10k1 grant · $9k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $178k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $358k
- $250k+3 grants · $22M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| JEWISH RELIEF NETWORK UKRAINE | $13,101,000 |
| WHITE FOREST JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER | $8,120,867 |
| JEWISH INSTITUTE OF QUEENS | $442,165 |
| CONGREGATION OHEL CHABAD LUBAVITCH | $114,972 |
| YTTL LUBAVITCHER YESHIVA | $109,984 |
| KOLEL TORAH INC | $72,555 |
| FRIENDS OF CHABAD LUBAVITCH IN LUXEMBOURG | $60,000 |
| COLEL CHABAD | $45,770 |
| CHABAD OF CENTRAL OREGON | $40,000 |
| UNITED LUBAVITCHER YESHIVA | $35,727 |
| CHABAD LUBAVITCH OF GREATER GAINESVILLE | $20,000 |
| JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MEDIA | $18,068 |
| CHABAD JEWISH CENTER OF CRANBERRY AND BUTLER INC | $18,000 |
| NORTH COUNTY CHABAD CENTER | $8,500 |
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 (FY23–23, $85k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, 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
Grants abroad, by region — $30M on the FY2025 return
Schedule F, as filed: 4 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: GENERAL SUPPORT
Stated purpose: GENERAL SUPPORT
Stated purpose: GENERAL SUPPORT
Stated purpose: GENERAL SUPPORT
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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +35% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
10 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 5 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, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $211k 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
- JRJEWISH RELIEF NETWORK UKRAINE3× · 2023–2025 · $29M · revenue +35% · 93% of their budget
- JCJEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF MOSCOW3× · 2023–2025 · $8.9M
- JIJEWISH INSTITUTE OF QUEENS3× · 2023–2025 · $3.4M
Funded once
- MLMERKOS LINYONEI CHINUCH INCone grant, 2024 · $102k
- OAOHR AVNER FOUNDATION INC2× · 2023–2024 · $85k · revenue -100%
- EJEuropean Jewish Association Incone grant, 2023 · $58k · revenue 0%
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.
Provide support to the Jewish people of Ukraine by providing support to Jewish institutions in Ukraine.
The furtherance of primacy of orthodox jewish jurisprudence
publish religious books
Furtherance of jewish education
Religious School
To foster jewish religious education and disseminate the teachings of rabbi nachman of breslov through publication and distribution of books and cds, as well as seminars, lectures and study groups.
To further jewish education in israel
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 Vaad Hatmimim Haolami Inc and the most unlike its peers is Chabad of Argentina Relief Appeal. 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 20 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 68% 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.
10 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. 10 of the 30 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
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.
- Who funds JEWISH RELIEF NETWORK UKRAINE ↗
- Who funds OHR AVNER FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds KOLEL TORAH INC ↗
- Who funds European Jewish Association Inc ↗
- Who funds TIKVA CORP ↗
- Who funds JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MEDIA ↗
- Who funds CHABAD OF ARGENTINA RELIEF APPEAL ↗
- Who funds Chassidus in English Inc ↗
- Who funds Vaad Hatmimim Haolami INC ↗
- Who funds Friends of Kishinev Jewry ↗
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: Kolel Torah Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Nash Charity Foundation Inc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · The Ojc Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile 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 Federation of Jewish Communities of the Cis 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 Federation of Jewish Communities of the Cis Inc?
Find your warmest path to Federation of Jewish Communities of the Cis 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.