Loading…
· Public charity
JEWISH FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICE OF
Provide quality & affordable psychological, employment & social services to those in crisis.
$3.0M
Granted FY2023
8
Grants
1
Communities
$389k
Largest
01What you fund
0165% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2023.
Education$1.4MHuman Services$837kReligion$710kOther$1.6M
02FY2023 · 8 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2023
- Under $10k1 grant · $9k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $58k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $532k
- $250k+1 grant · $389k
$99,990
Median grant
1
States reached
$26M
Total assets
Largest grants
- AJAPO$389,123
- LITERACY PITTSBURGH$233,586
- SOUTH HILLS INTERFAITH MOVEMENT$101,430
- ALLEGHENY INTERMEDIATE UNIT$99,990
- CASA SAN JOSE$96,903
- NORTH HILLS COMMUNITY OUTREACH INC$32,196
- PGH HISPANIC DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY$25,625
- ARYSE$9,113
02The need
03
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.
show:
Your human-services grants (FY18–23, $837k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11% — the area typically sits at 14%. 1% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
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.
95%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$4.3M · 8 repeat orgs$207k to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +142% since the first grant, against +41% for the ones you funded once.
8 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2023, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
8
4
Total granted
$4.3M
$182k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+142%
+41%
Still filing today
63%
75%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2023, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $26k went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Human ServicesEducationReligionOther
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
- LPLITERACY PITTSBURGH6× · 2018–2023 · $1.2M · revenue +153%
- SHSOUTH HILLS INTERFAITH MOVEMENT6× · 2018–2023 · $710k · revenue +142%
- AAJAPO2× · 2022–2023 · $675k · revenue +94% · 32% of their budget
Funded once
- NANORTHERN AREA MULTI-SERVICE CENTERgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $152k · revenue +41%
- GEGIANT EAGLEone grant, 2019 · $12k
- HHIASgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +149%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
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.
1
Pennsylvania Hias Indigent Immigrant
Provides free immigration legal services to immigrants, refugees, foreign-born individuals and their family members who reside in pennsylvania.
Human Services
2
Ansar of Pittsburgh Corp
We provide social services and placement Work with refugees and immigrants for placement and transition to life in new communities
Human Services
3
Pennsylvania Immigration Resource Center
Pirc provides free high quality legal services so that vulnerable immigrants and their families have access to justice and a more secure future.
Crime & Legal
4
Coalition of African Communities - Philadelphia Africom
To advocate and organize so that immigrants and refugees feel a sense of belonging and self-sufficiency. The mission is achieved by facilitating access to health and social services.
Community Improvement
5
World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh
To convene and connect people around global issues to build a competitive, thriving, and inclusive pittsburgh.
International
6
GlobalPittsburgh
GlobalPittsburgh is a nonprofit organization with a mission to forge cultural, educational, and business relationships between Western Pennsylvania and the global community through citizen diplomacy.
Community Improvement
7
Northside Leadership Conference
To provide housing and economic consulting and development of the Northside of Pittsburgh as well as job placement for Northside residents.
—
8
Casa of Allegheny County
To recruit and train community members to advocate for the best interests of abused and neglected children.
Civil Rights
9
Center for Integration and Migrant Support
The Center for Integration and Migrant Support (CIMS) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to empowering Sub-Saharan African refugees and migrants in Philadelphia and beyond. We provide essential resources and strategic guidance to help…
Human Services
10
Global Solutions Pittsburgh
The global switchboard stewards a diverse network of people and organizations to promote equitable global engagement in the pittsburgh region. we strive to build a region where all people value diversity, practice empathy, and work…
International
11
African Family Health Organization
Afaho provides health and human services to african and caribbean immigrants and refugees in the greater philadelphia area.
Civil Rights
12
Interfaith Center of Greater Philadelphia
In order to promote social harmony and inter-religious understanding, Interfaith Philadelphia equips individuals and communities for interfaith engagement, builds collaborative relationships, and stands in solidarity with our diverse…
Religion
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is North Hills Community Outreach Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Consortium for Public Education. 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, every filing reconciled, 2018–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
8/8
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$1,562,057Education$1,354,005Human Services$836,683Religion$710,147
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.
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.
The Pittsburgh FoundationPA23.1× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: The Pittsburgh Foundation · The United Way of Southwestern · Richard King Mellon Foundation · Hillman Family Foundations · The Grable Foundation · The Heinz Endowments · Pitcairn-Crabbe Foundation · The Cigna Group Foundation · Tickets for Kids Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc
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 organisation JEWISH FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICE OF 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.
2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
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. 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.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: AJAPO.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
low risk
~8 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 7 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
7 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up +94% since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 200645829 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on AJAPO, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 8 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 32% of their budget — diversified.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Jewish Family and Children's Service Of?
Find your warmest path to Jewish Family and Children's Service Of through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines