Skip to content

· Public charity

Jewish Kids Group Foundation Inc

Jewish Kids Groups is an independent network of Jewish supplementary schools that educate and inspire children-in a way that feels like summer camp-engendering positive Jewish learning, identity, and friendships.

$1.2M
Granted FY2025still arriving
18
Grants FY2025still arriving
9
States reached
$62k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2025.

Religion$799kPhilanthropy$200kCommunity Improvement$117kScience & Tech$62k
02FY2025 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 18 grants below total $977,880, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,168,247 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $190,367 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

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $132k
  • $50k–250k14 grants · $846k
$62,192
Median grant
9
States reached
$5.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Congregation Anshai Torah$62,192
Congregation Beth El of the Oranges and Maplewood Inc$62,192
Temple Kol Ami Emanu-El$62,192
Temple Shalom of Newton$62,192
Temple Judea$62,192
Shomrei Torah Synagogue- Hamakom$62,192
Adat Ari El$62,192
Santa Monica Temple Association- Beth Shir Shalom$62,192
Congregation Beth Shalom$62,192
Congregation Har Hasham$62,192
Temple Ohabei Shalom$62,192
Congregation Rodeph Shalom$62,192
Temple Shalom$50,000
The San Leandro Hebrew Congregation$50,000
Temple B'nai Abraham$47,192
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY23–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 74% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Temple Ohabei Shalom: $62k → 7%Temple Shalom of Newton: $62k → 8%Congregation Rodeph Shalom: $62k → 22%The San Leandro Hebrew Congregation: $50k → 10%Adat Ari El: $62k → 14%Congregation Anshai Torah: $62k → 5%Congregation B'nai Emunah: $22k → 15%Temple Shalom: $50k → 10%Temple Kol Ami Emanu-El: $62k → 13%Temple Sinai of North Dade: $47k → 15%JEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER ATLANTA INC: $200k → 13%Congregation Har Hasham: $62k → 12%Congregation Beth Shalom: $62k → 14%Congregation Beth El of the Oranges and Maplewood Inc: $62k → 16%First Hebrew Congregation of Oakland: $15k → 10%Santa Monica Temple Association- Beth Shir Shalom: $62k → 14%Temple Judea: $62k → 15%Temple B'nai Abraham: $47k → 16%Shomrei Torah Synagogue- Hamakom: $62k → 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
MA
PA
NJ
CA
CO
OK
GA
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
04the grantee network

1 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. 1 of the 19 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
1/1
Grantees still filing
1/1
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HAMAKOM: $62,192 · OtherHAMAKOMBOULDER JEWISH FELLOWSHIP INC: $62,192 · OtherBOULDER JEWISH FELLOWSHIP INCSANTA MONICA TEMPLE ASSOCIATION CONGREGATION BETH SHOLOM: $62,192 · OtherSANTA MONICA TEMPLE ASSOCIATION CONGREGATION BETH SHOLOMCONGREGATION ANSHAI TORAH: $62,192 · OtherCONGREGATION ANSHAI TORAHTEMPLE JUDEA: $62,192 · OtherTEMPLE JUDEACONGREGATION BETH EL: $62,192 · OtherCONGREGATION BETH ELCONGREGATION BETH SHALOM: $62,192 · OtherCONGREGATION BETH SHALOMADAT ARI EL: $62,192 · OtherADAT ARI ELRODEPH SHALOM CONGREGATION: $62,192 · OtherRODEPH SHALOM CONGREGATIONTEMPLE OHABEI SHALOM: $62,192 · OtherTEMPLE OHABEI SHALOMTEMPLE SHALOM OF NEWTON: $62,192 · OtherTEMPLE SHALOM OF NEWTONTemple Kol Ami Emanu-El: $62,192 · OtherTemple Kol Ami Emanu-ElTHE SAN LEANDRO HEBREW CONGREGATION: $50,000 · OtherTEMPLE SHALOM INC: $50,000 · OtherTEMPLE BNAI ABRAHAM: $47,192 · OtherTEMPLE SINAI OF NORTH DADE INC: $47,192 · Other+2 more: $37,192 · OtherJEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER ATLANTA INC: $200,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FEDERATION O…
Other$977,880Philanthropy$200,000

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 budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER ATLANTA INC: $200,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

  • Who funds JEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER ATLANTA INC ↗

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 Federation of Metropolitan ChicagoIL13× affinity4 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Jewish Communal Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile 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 Jewish Kids Group Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jewish Kids Group Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%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
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 19 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Jewish Kids Group’s filings →

    More from the funding graph