Skip to content
Jonathan Merage Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Jonathan Merage Foundation

Its FY2023 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$209k
Granted FY2018
7
Grants FY2018
3
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

93% of Jonathan Merage Foundation’s FY2023 grant dollars went to National Philanthropic Trust, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2023 names 1 organization directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2018, the last year Jonathan Merage Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 5 organizations, $209k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

1
’17
5
’18
3
’19
1
’20
1
’21
1
’22
1
’23

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2023.

Philanthropy$2.3MEnvironment$250kReligion$200kEducation$78kHuman Services$50kScience & Tech$10kInternational$10kHealth$5kOther$0
02FY2018 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2018

  • Under $10k5 grants · $10k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $199k
$3,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$21M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Denver Botanic Gardens$100,000
JPM Charitable Giving Fund$99,000
National Jewish Health$5,000
University of Oklahoma Foundation$3,000
Black Cube$1,000
Executive Partnering to Invest in C$500
Early Learning Ventures$100
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 (FY23–23, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%Belev Echad: $50k → 17%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

NY
PA
CT
CO
MD
DE
HI
OK
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
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
University of Judaism Foundation
—
2
Bar Ilan University in Israel Inc

Biu produces students who excel in the sciences, humanities, law, engineering, business & the arts.

—
3
The Jewish Agency for Israel

The jewish agency binds jews across ideologies and civilizations together in a worldwide jewish family with israel at its center. it provides the global framework for aliyah, ensures global jewish safety, strengthens jewish identity and…

—
4
American Friends of Hebrew University Inc

Support the hebrew univ. of jerusalem, israel's foremost center of higher edu. & research.

International
5
Jewish Federation Council of Greater La

Based on jewish values, the jewish federation of greater los angeles convenes and leads the community and leverages its resources to assure the continuity of the jewish people, support a secure state of israel, care for jews in need here…

Philanthropy
6
Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles

We steward $1.5 billion in charitable assets through donor-advised funds, endowments, and other giving vehicles. partnering with 1,400 individuals, families, and organizations, we build enduring legacies and multigenerational impact. in…

Philanthropy
7
Weizmann Institute of Science

The weizmann institute of science, located in rehovot, israel, is one of the worlds top-ranking, multidisciplinary research institutions. at any one time, several thousand scientists, staff and students are involved in hundreds of research…

Science & Tech
8
The Israel Innovation Fund Inc

Our vision is to reignite the zionist spirit and meet the needs of jewish civilization in the twenty-first century by connecting people around the world through the vibrancy and creativity of contemporary israeli culture.

Arts & Culture
9
American Jewish Committee

AJC's mission is to enhance the wellbeing of the Jewish people and Israel, and to advance human rights and democratic values in the United States and around the world. In pursuit of this mission, AJC advances democratic principles, fights…

Civil Rights
10
American Friends of Bar-Ilan University

We fundraise in the u.s. to support, and raise awareness of, bar-ilan university in israel.

Education
11
Jlens

Jlens empowers investors to align their capital with jewish values and advocates for jewish communal priorities in the corporate arena. (see sch. o)jlens promotes investing through a jewish lens and aims to increase the jewish community's…

Religion
12
Hillel the Foundation for Jewish Campus Life

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…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Philanthropic Trust; the most unlike its peers is Black Cube. 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

12 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. 12 of the 16 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)
12/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST: $1,865,000 · PhilanthropyNATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUSTJEWISHColorado: $200,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISHColorado+2 more: $10,100 · PhilanthropyJPM Charitable Giving Fund: $434,000 · OtherJPM Charitable Giv…University of Hawaii: $24,500 · Other+3 more: $11,500 · OtherDENVER BOTANIC GARDENS INC: $250,000 · EnvironmentDENVER BO…COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $50,878 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC: $3,000 · EducationBELEV ECHAD INC: $50,000 · Human ServicesHIAS INC: $10,000 · InternationalNATIONAL JEWISH HEALTH: $5,000 · HealthANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $5,000 · Civil Rights
Philanthropy$2,075,100Other$470,000Environment$250,000Education$53,878Human Services$50,000International$10,000Health$5,000Civil Rights$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST: $1,865,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetDENVER BOTANIC GARDENS INC: $250,000 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetJEWISHColorado: $200,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $50,878 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBELEV ECHAD INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetHIAS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL JEWISH HEALTH: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBLACK CUBE: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Jonathan Merage Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jonathan Merage Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 88%
  • Hias Inc: 88% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Jonathan Merage Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Jonathan Merage Foundation 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.

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 16 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Jonathan Merage’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