Skip to content
Jewish Community Relations Council of Metropolitan Detroit at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Jewish Community Relations Council of Metropolitan Detroit

Community Relations

$125k
Granted FY2020
1
Grants FY2020
1
States reached
$118k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2020.

Education$370kEmployment$118k
02FY2020 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $117,683, the rows itemized in this filing. The $124,939 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $7,256 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.
$117,683
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
JEWISH VOCATIONAL SERVICES$117,683
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 (FY17–19, $79k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER: $27k → 8%JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER: $26k → 8%JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER: $26k → 8%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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

75%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$352k · 8 repeat orgs$118k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2020, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
1

Total granted

$352k
$118k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+28%
+62%

Still filing today

63%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $118k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20
EmploymentHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementEducationOther
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

  • NC
    NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN MICHIG
    3× · 2017–2019 · $60k · revenue +130%
  • JA
    JEAN AND SAMUEL FRANKEL JEWISH ACADEMY OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT
    3× · 2017–2019 · $21k · revenue +28%
  • OL
    OAKLAND LITERACY COUNCIL
    2× · 2017–2018 · $14k · revenue +154%

Funded once

  • GH
    GESHER HUMAN SERVICESgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $118k · revenue +62%
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
National Council of Jewish Women Inc Jersey Hills Section
—
2
Hillel of Metropolitan Detroit

Inspire students to be active in jewish life.

Education
3
Keren L'torah

Keren l'torah will promote jewish education in the greater detroit jewish community through classes, lectures, and distribution of written and audio materials. all educational opportunities by the corporation will be either free or at a…

Religion
4
Jewish Federation of Greater Clifton-Passaic
—
5
University of Judaism Foundation
—
6
Delegation of Jewish American Students (Dojas)
—
7
Michigan Jewish Center for Learning Development

Educating teenagers who have emotional and.or psychological disabilities and intstill in them jewish values and knowledge

Youth Development
8
J Leaders

Our vision is to develop ethical, impactful Jewish young adult leaders to ensure a vibrant Jewish community and make the world a better place. Our mission is to empower and engage Jewish young adults through leadership development and…

Youth Development
9
Jewish Historical Society of Michigan

Jewish historical society of michigan shares and celebrates the experiences and contributions of the jewish people, communities and institutions of michigan.

—
10
Aish Hatorah Detroit

To ignite jewish passion and empower every jew to embrace their heritage, thereby ensuring the vibrant continuity of the jewish epople.

Religion
11
Jewish Federation of Greater Ann Arbor

The federation provides and inspires philanthropic leadership and community-building to nurture a strong, engaged, connected, vibrant, and enduring jewish community locally, in israel, and around the world.

Philanthropy
12
The Jewish Fund

The jewish fund is organized and operates exclusively for charitable, educational, and religious purposes. the fund's primary activities are: supporting a jewish health care mission in the greater detroit area and michigan; promotion of…

Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Community Center of Metropolitan Detroit; the most unlike its peers is Southeast Regional Conference of Delta Kappa Gamma. 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

8 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. 8 of the 10 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Hadassah Greater Detroit: $68,074 · OtherHadassah Greater DetroitFARBER HEBREW DAY SCHOOL-YESHIVAL AKIVA: $44,313 · OtherFARBER HEBREW DAY SCHOOL-YESHIVAL AKIVAORT AMERICA INC: $40,937 · OtherORT AMERICA INCSOUTHEAST REGIONAL CONFERENCE OF DELTA KAPPA GAMMA: $24,584 · OtherSOUTHEAST REGIONAL CONFERENCE OF DELTA KAPPA…OAKLAND LITERACY COUNCIL: $13,848 · OtherOAKLAND LITERACY COUNCILGESHER HUMAN SERVICES: $117,683 · EmploymentGESHER HUMAN SERVICESJEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT: $78,861 · Human ServicesJEWISH COMMUNITY C…NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN MICHIG: $60,224 · Community ImprovementNATIONAL COUN…JEAN AND SAMUEL FRANKEL JEWISH ACADEMY OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT: $21,005 · EducationJEWISH FEDERATION OF DETROIT: $18,065 · Philanthropy
Other$191,756Employment$117,683Human Services$78,861Community Improvement$60,224Education$21,005Philanthropy$18,065

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGESHER HUMAN SERVICES: $117,683 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetJEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT: $78,861 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetNATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN MICHIG: $60,224 over 3y, 2.7% of budgetORT AMERICA INC: $40,937 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetSOUTHEAST REGIONAL CONFERENCE OF DELTA KAPPA GAMMA: $24,584 over 3y, 6.0% of budgetJEAN AND SAMUEL FRANKEL JEWISH ACADEMY OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT: $21,005 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF DETROIT: $18,065 over 2y, 0.0% 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.

United Jewish Foundat…Jewish Federation of …Community Foundation …Pappas Foundation IncGrosfeld FoundationThe Andrea and Lawren…The Ravitz FoundationPhillip and Elizabeth…The Jewish FundUnited Way for Southe…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
United Jewish FoundationMI17.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Jewish Foundation · Jewish Federation of Detroit · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · Pappas Foundation Inc · Grosfeld Foundation · The Andrea and Lawrence Wolfe Family Foundation · The Ravitz Foundation · Phillip and Elizabeth Filmer Memorial · The Jewish Fund · United Way for Southeastern Michigan · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Jewish Community Relations Council of Metropolitan Detroit funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jewish Community Relations Council of Metropolitan Detroit. 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%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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.

    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 10 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 (FY2025) is on record and reports $495k 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 Jewish Community Relations Council of Metropolitan Detroit’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