Skip to content
Fgi Foundation at a glance

· Public charity

Fgi Foundation

Support the charitable, educational and religious purposes of the jewish federation of cleveland ("federation").

$120k
Granted FY2020
4
Grants FY2020
1
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

52% of Fgi Foundation’s FY2020 grant dollars went to Jewish Communal Fund, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2020 names 2 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Organizations named directly on the return

6
’18
7
’19
2
’20

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2020.

Philanthropy$621kReligion$227kArts & Culture$130kCivil Rights$50kEducation$28kHuman Services$25k
02FY2020 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $115,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $120,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $5,000 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2020

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $65k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$30,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
JEWISH COMMUNAL FUND OF NY$50,000
ZAMIR CHORAL FOUNDATION INC$30,000
UNITED JEWISH APPEAL FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NY INC$25,000
JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC$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 (FY18–18, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%MANDEL JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF CLEVELAND: $25k → 17%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.
04

Where the work is directed

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

About 23% of Fgi Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Fgi Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 8.3% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

27%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$130k · 3 repeat orgs$355k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +16% since the first grant, against +12% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2020, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
7

Total granted

$130k
$330k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+16%
+12%

Still filing today

100%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 55% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20
Arts & CultureReligionEducationHuman ServicesPhilanthropyOther
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

  • ZC
    ZAMIR CHORAL FOUNDATION INC
    3× · 2018–2020 · $90k · revenue +16%
  • AJ
    AMERICAN JEWISH UNIVERSITY
    2× · 2018–2019 · $28k · revenue -20%
  • JE
    JEWISH EDUCATION CENTER OF CLEVELAND
    2× · 2018–2019 · $12k · revenue +79%

Funded once

  • CA
    CONGREGATION ANSCHE CHESED
    one grant, 2019 · $180k
  • TS
    THE SACRED RIGHTS SACRED SONG PROJECT
    one grant, 2018 · $50k
  • BC
    BECK CENTER FOR THE ARTS
    one grant, 2019 · $25k · revenue +13%
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
Eastern European Jewish Heritage Foundation
Philanthropy
2
University of Judaism Foundation
—
3
The Jewish Foundation of Cincinnati
Philanthropy
4
National Council of Jewish Women Inc Jersey Hills Section
—
5
Foundation for Conservative Judiasm of South Florida
—
6
The Steinhardt Foundation for Jewish Life Inc
Religion
7
Yeshiva University

The university is composed of several colleges and schools providing undergraduate, graduate, professional and post-doctoral education and training and research and clinical programs.

Education
8
The Jerusalem Connection
—
9
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary

To prepare students for the rabbinate and to issue the traditional certificate of ordination in connection therewith. the seminary is authorized to confer the degree of master of hebrew literature (m.h.l.), doctor of hebrew literature…

Education
10
Jewish Federation of Greater Clifton-Passaic
—
11
Delegation of Jewish American Students (Dojas)
—
12
The Jewish Museum

The mission of the jewish museum is to collect, preserve, exhibit and interpret art and jewish culture. see schedule o for more information.

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Jewish University; the most unlike its peers is Western Wind Vocal Ensemble Inc. 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

13 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. 13 of the 14 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/13
Grantees still filing
11/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND: $295,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELANDJEWISH COMMUNAL FUND: $250,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH COMMUNAL FUNDTHE JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC: $51,000 · PhilanthropyTHE JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INCUNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC: $25,000 · PhilanthropyCONGREGATION ANSCHE CHESED: $180,000 · OtherCONGREGATION ANSCHE CHES…THE SACRED RIGHTS SACRED SONG PROJECT: $50,000 · OtherTHE SACRED RIGHTS SACRED…ZAMIR CHORAL FOUNDATION INC: $90,000 · Arts & CultureZAMIR CHORAL …BECK CENTER FOR THE ARTS: $25,000 · Arts & CultureBECK CENTER F…WESTERN WIND VOCAL ENSEMBLE INC: $15,000 · Arts & CultureWESTERN WIND …MOVING TRADITIONS: $25,000 · ReligionJEWISH EDUCATION CENTER OF CLEVELAND: $12,000 · ReligionCANTOR'S ASSEMBLY: $10,000 · ReligionAMERICAN JEWISH UNIVERSITY: $28,000 · EducationThe Mandel Jewish Community Center of Cleveland: $25,000 · Human Services
Philanthropy$621,000Other$230,000Arts & Culture$130,000Religion$47,000Education$28,000Human Services$25,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND: $295,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetJEWISH COMMUNAL FUND: $250,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetZAMIR CHORAL FOUNDATION INC: $90,000 over 3y, 2.0% of budgetTHE JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC: $51,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN JEWISH UNIVERSITY: $28,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBECK CENTER FOR THE ARTS: $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetThe Mandel Jewish Community Center of Cleveland: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMOVING TRADITIONS: $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetUNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWESTERN WIND VOCAL ENSEMBLE INC: $15,000 over 1y, 6.5% of budgetCANTOR'S ASSEMBLY: $10,000 over 1y, 1.5% 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.

Jewish Communal FundVanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Jewish Communal FundNY12× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Fgi Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Fgi Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's 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
    7report 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, 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 Fgi Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Fgi 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 14 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $92k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2020, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Fgi’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