Skip to content

· Private foundation

Five C Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$155k
Granted FY2025still arriving
22
Grants FY2025still arriving
8
States reached
$30k
Largest
01What it funds
0173% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Religion$80kCivil Rights$30kInternational$20kEducation$10kHuman Services$10kPhilanthropy$3kFood & Nutrition$1kRecreation & Sports$500Other$0
02FY2025 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k16 grants · $50k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $105k
$5,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$512k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CLARION PROJECT INC$30,000
AM YISRAEL CHAI FOUNDATION INC$25,000
FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES$15,000
MERKOS LINYOUNEI CHINUCH LUBAVITCH OF INDIANA INC$15,000
CHICAGO CHESED FUND$10,000
OPENDOR MEDIA INC$10,000
CONGREGATION OR TORAH$7,465
GREEN ROAD SYNAGOGUE$6,870
PROJECT 613 NFP$5,000
JET-JEWISH EDUCATIONAL TEAM INC$5,000
UNITED NATIONS WATCH USA$5,000
JEM FOUNDATION INC$4,000
CHABAD LUBAVITCH ON CAMPUS-PRINCETON$3,600
HASTEN HEBREW ACADEMY OF INDIANAPOLIS$2,500
J-GIVE-FRIENDS OF ASOR FUND USA INC$2,500
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 (FY25–25, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, 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%CHICAGO CHESED FUND: $10k → 14%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.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
NY
IN
OH
NJ
CA
TX
FL
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.
03Its 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
University of Judaism Foundation
—
2
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
3
Zohar Hatorah Inc

Religious School

Religion
4
American Friends of Yeshivat Hakotel Inc

To support religious, charitable, scientific, literary and/or educational programs

Education
5
Friends of Yeshiva Tehilas Shlomo Inc

Provide support to further jewish education

Philanthropy
6
Fund for Jewish Education Inc
Philanthropy
7
Friends of Yeshiva Beer Abraham

Furtherance of jewish education

Religion
8
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
9
American Friends of Oseh Chayil

To further jewish education in israel

Religion
10
Foundation for Jewish Renaissance I

To strengthen the connection between jewish people and their faith, traditions and homeland

Religion
11
Kehillah Jewish Education Fund

Make an authentic jewish education, coupled with an excellent secular education, available and affordable to all jewish families in the chicagoland community.

Education
12
Eastern European Jewish Heritage Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Opendor Media Inc; the most unlike its peers is Friends of the Israel Defense Forces. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

11 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. 11 of the 24 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)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
8/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DETAIL AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST: $1,053,877 · OtherDETAIL AVAILABLE UPON REQUESTDETAIL PROVIDED UPON REQUEST: $584,789 · OtherDETAIL PROVIDED UPON REQUEST+11 more: $28,073 · OtherMERKOS L INYOUNEI CHINUCH LUBAVITCH OF INDIANA INC: $15,000 · ReligionOPENDOR MEDIA INC: $10,000 · ReligionJET - JEWISH EDUCATION TEAM INC: $5,000 · ReligionJEM FOUNDATION INC: $4,000 · ReligionHasten Hebrew Academy of Indianapolis: $2,500 · ReligionCLARION PROJECT INC: $30,000 · Arts & CultureAM YISRAEL CHAI FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 · EducationPROJECT 613 NFP: $5,000 · EducationFRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: $15,000 · InternationalCHICAGO CHESED FUND: $10,000 · Human ServicesUNITED NATIONS WATCH - USA: $5,000 · Civil Rights
Other$1,666,739Religion$36,500Arts & Culture$30,000Education$30,000International$15,000Human Services$10,000Civil Rights$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their 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.

  • Who funds CLARION PROJECT INC ↗
  • Who funds AM YISRAEL CHAI FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES ↗
  • Who funds MERKOS L INYOUNEI CHINUCH LUBAVITCH OF INDIANA INC ↗
  • Who funds OPENDOR MEDIA INC ↗
  • Who funds CHICAGO CHESED FUND ↗
  • Who funds PROJECT 613 NFP ↗
  • Who funds UNITED NATIONS WATCH - USA ↗
  • Who funds JET - JEWISH EDUCATION TEAM INC ↗
  • Who funds JEM FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Hasten Hebrew Academy of Indianapolis ↗

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 FundNY15.5× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · Jewish Federation of Cleveland · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · Todd a and Raphaela Stern Family Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · National Philanthropic Trust · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Endowment 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 Five C Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Five C Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 10%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
    1get no government money at all
    1report 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, FY20–24
    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.

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

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Five C’s filings →

    More from the funding graph