· Private foundation
Hornik Family 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.
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.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k14 grants · $68k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $15k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| JCC Chicago | $15,000 |
| Congregation Ohev Shalom | $9,545 |
| Jewish Federation of Bluegrass | $6,500 |
| Ohavay Zion Congregation | $5,943 |
| Art Over Hate Collective | $5,400 |
| Monterey Peninsula College | $5,376 |
| American Friends of Leket Israel | $5,000 |
| Temple of Aaron | $5,000 |
| Tamid Group | $5,000 |
| Institute for Regional Conservation | $5,000 |
| Congregation Beth Israel | $4,532 |
| Congregation Beth Evergreen | $3,500 |
| Kids In Namibia Deserve Love Enco | $2,500 |
| The Jewish Pavilion of Central Flor | $2,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +75% since the first grant, against -8% for the ones you funded once.
17 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 6 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, 56% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $33k 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
- MHMINNESOTA HILLEL5× · 2017–2023 · $28k · revenue +95%
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF LEKET ISRAEL INC7× · 2017–2025 · $27k · revenue +169%
- NJNECHAMA - JEWISH RESPONSE TO DISASTER2× · 2017–2018 · $15k · revenue +13%
Funded once
- AIAMERICA ISRAEL DEMOCRACY COALITIONone grant, 2024 · $13k
- MUMcGill Universityone grant, 2017 · $10k
- HDHileicher Day School2× · 2023–2024 · $8k
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.
The mission of Iowa Hillel is to enhance the lives of Jewish students at the University of Iowa, so they may enrich the Jewish people and the world. Iowa Hillel envisions a world for our students where they find a community here at Iowa…
To create an informed, celebratory and satisfying jewish community for students at the university of southern california, to deepen jewish identity through social, intellectual and spiritual participation, to offer diversified…
The mission of Hillel at the University of Washington (Hillel UW) is to inspire students and young adults (ages 18-35) to explore, embrace, and celebrate Jewish life and identity.
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 enrich the lives of Jewish students so that they may enrich the Jewish people and the world.
KU Hillel's mission is to connect Jewish students to each other and to their Judaism, to inspire and equip the next generation of Jewish leaders, and to build a thriving Jewish community on campus.
Hillel of Colorado seeks to engage, empower, and work with Jewish college students to create Jewish communities at University of Denver, Colorado State University, Auraria Campus, Colorado School of Mines and other front range…
Hillel 818 is the campus hub for all things Jewish at Cal State Northridge, Pierce College, LA Valley College, and throughout the San Fernando Valley. We empower our 6,000+ Jewish students to forge lasting friendships, grow as leaders,…
Enrich the lives of jewish students
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Federation of the Bluegrass Inc and the most unlike its peers is Blood Cancer United 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 31 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 5% 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.
19 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. 19 of the 52 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 MINNESOTA HILLEL ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF LEKET ISRAEL INC ↗
- Who funds Jewish Community Centers of Chicago ↗
- Who funds NECHAMA - JEWISH RESPONSE TO DISASTER ↗
- Who funds AMERICA ISRAEL DEMOCRACY COALITION ↗
- Who funds JEWISH FEDERATION OF THE BLUEGRASS INC ↗
- Who funds The Inst for Regional Conservation ↗
- Who funds THE JEWISH PAVILION OF CENTRAL FLORIDA INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF UNITED HATZALAH INC ↗
- Who funds Santa Cruz Hillel Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE TALMUD TORAH OF ST PAUL ↗
- Who funds HILLEL FOUNDATION UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN INC ↗
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: The Minneapolis Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Hornik Family Foundation 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.
- The Inst for Regional Conservation — 35% of income from government
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 Hornik Family Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Hornik Family Foundation 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.