How much does Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area give?

Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area reported 14 itemized grants totaling $492,000, out of $941,000 in total grant expense reported on the return in its FY2025 IRS filing. It funded between 12 and 20 organizations a year over FY2018 to FY2024.

What does Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area fund?

By grant dollars over FY2017 to FY2025, its largest causes are International (30%), Religion (25%), Philanthropy (23%).

Who are Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area's largest grantees?

By total granted over FY2017 to FY2025: Jewish Family Service of the Desert ($1.2M), Bikur Cholim of Palm Springs ($984k), American Lutheran Publicity Bureau ($875k).

Does Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area fund new organizations?

In FY2024, 33% of the organizations it funded were first-time grantees.

Which funders back the same organizations as Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area?

Its strongest co-funders, measured against what their size predicts, include Inland Empire Community Foundation, Regional Access Project Foundation, The Grace Helen Spearman Foundation.

Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area

Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area at a glance Mostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area

Q: Where is Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area based?

Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area is based in CA.

The federation is dedicated to promoting the values and quality of jewish life and is committed to fostering a continuity of jewish life for future generations.

$941k

Granted FY2025still arriving

Grants FY2025still arriving

States reached

$140k

Largest

01What it funds

0199% classified

What it funded, over time

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

International$2.7MReligion$2.2MPhilanthropy$2.0MHuman Services$1.6MCivil Rights$115kFood & Nutrition$90kArts & Culture$32kYouth Development$23kOther$0

02FY2025 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured

The 14 grants below total $492,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $941,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $449,000 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 · FY2025

Under $10k3 grants · $21k
$10k–50k8 grants · $124k
$50k–250k3 grants · $348k

$15,000

Median grant

States reached

$9.4M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
BIKUR CHOLIM	$140,000
JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES	$105,000
INLAND AND DESERT HILLEL COUNCIL	$103,000
TEMPLE ISAIAH	$26,000
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE	$20,000
TEMPLE SINAI	$19,500
MIZELL SENIOR CENTER	$15,000
JOSLYN SENIOR CENTER	$12,000
TEC	$11,000
ANGEL VIEW	$10,000
ALEPH SCHOOL	$10,000
SAFEHOUSE OF THE DESERT	$7,500
CONGREGATION BETH SHALOM	$7,500
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB	$5,500

02The need

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 (FY17–25, $1.4M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, 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.

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.

Grants abroad, by region: $429k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Region not stated$429k · 100% · 6 grants

Stated purpose: HUMANITARIAN

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.

03Its grantees

repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.

$6.2M · 31 repeat orgs$246k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +71% since the first grant, against +14% for those funded once.

31 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 19 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$6.2M

$229k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+71%

+14%

Still filing today

65%

27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $18k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Human ServicesInternationalArts & CultureReligionCivil RightsFood & NutritionOther

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

JF
JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF THE DESERT
9× · 2017–2025 · $1.2M · revenue +58%
The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee Inc
2× · 2023–2024 · $300k · revenue +1%
IA
Inland and Desert Hillel Council
3× · 2023–2025 · $288k · revenue +28% · 59% of their budget

Funded once

BC
BIKUR CHOLIM - COMMUNITY MISSION
one grant, 2024 · $130k
Z
ZAKA
one grant, 2024 · $15k
CO
CHABAD OF PALM SPRINGS
one grant, 2017 · $15k

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.

Youth Towns of Israel (California)

International

International Fellowship of Christians & Jews Inc

The international fellowship of christian and jews is the leading non-profit building bridges between christians and jews, blessing israel and the jewish people around the world with, humanitarian care and life-saving aid.

—

Idf Memorial Foundation

Philanthropy

Joint Israel

To help build a more just society by creating model programs for disadvantaged populations. The activities focus primarily on helping Israel overcome the challenges facing five groups (cont. on sched O):

International

Jewish Life Foundation

—

Sherit Isroel

—

Delegation of Jewish American Students (Dojas)

—

Jewish Federation of Southern Arizona

Jewish philanthropies of southern arizona (jpsa) is committed to achieving the full potential of jewish philanthropy, now and for future generations. comprised of jewish federation of southern arizona (jfsa or federation) and jewish…

Philanthropy

University of Judaism Foundation

—

Zichron Avrohom Yosef

Philanthropy

American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah

—

The Afghan Jewish Foundation Inc

—

How this is measured

The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Federation of Orange County; the most unlike its peers is Tzedakah Fund. 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

29 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. 29 of the 47 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

27/29

Grantees still filing

24/29

Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Other$3,812,788Philanthropy$2,011,056Human Services$1,476,865International$988,800Arts & Culture$320,070Religion$125,000Civil Rights$114,600

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

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.

Inland Empire Community FoundationCA21× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Inland Empire Community Foundation · Regional Access Project Foundation · The Grace Helen Spearman Foundation · Charity Works · Houston Family Foundation · The Champions Volunteer Foundation · The Auen Foundation · The Coeta and Donald Barker Foundation · Bighorn Golf Club Charities Inc · HN and Frances C Berger Foundation · The Galen Family Foundation · The Art Laboe Foundation Inc

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 Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area. Bigger dots raise more.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

2get no government money at all

10report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%

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.

Play a game based on Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area’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