How much did MAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger grant in FY2024?

Food & Nutrition$3.3MCrime & Legal$2.5MHuman Services$2.3MPublic Benefit$1.8MPhilanthropy$1.4MHealth$1.3MEducation$885kCivil Rights$848kInternational$772kOther$2.9M

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2019

valuesadultprograms-communityleadershipwestreducefood banking

2020

donationsnon-profitbeyond policingpower policewestreduceeconomic security

2021

reducewesteconomic securityitems fooddiscriminationtobaccokansans

2022

counselingyouthpuerto ricovoicesactionschildren'sitems food

2023

puerto ricochildren'sactionsvoicesfloridiansitems foodnortheast

2024

puerto ricofloridiansnortheastchildren'sactionsvoicesenhance

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 46 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

$10k–50k8 grants · $200k
$50k–250k38 grants · $3.1M

$80,000

Median grant

States reached

$12M

Total assets

Largest grants

New Israel Fund$155,000
Alaska Native Tribal Health C$100,000
University of Arkansas$100,000
Alaska Federation of Natives$100,000
Instituto del Desarrollo$100,000
Alaska Food Policy Council$97,560
Georgia Budget & Policy Insti$95,000
Hawaii Childrens Action Netw$90,000
Hawaii Public Health Institu$90,000
Hawaii Appleseed Ctr for Law$90,000
Florida Impact Inc$90,000
Hunger Free Oklahoma$90,000
William E Morris Institute$90,000
Hawaii Foodbank Inc$90,000
Alabama Arise$85,000

02The need

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 (FY18–24, $2.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14% — the area typically sits at 10%. 71% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-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.

$17M · 71 repeat orgs$822k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +83% since the first grant, against +72% for the ones you funded once.

71 repeat relationships — 42 still active in FY2024, 29 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$17M

$662k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+83%

+72%

Still filing today

99%

90%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $160k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Food & NutritionCrime & LegalHuman ServicesPublic BenefitPhilanthropyEducationOther

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

NI
New Israel Negev Coexistence
7× · 2018–2024 · $640k · revenue +90%
WE
William E Morris Institute
6× · 2019–2024 · $465k · revenue +59%
Sikkuy Assoc for Adv of Civ E
7× · 2018–2024 · $425k · revenue +160%

Funded once

UF
UCLA FOUNDATIONgraduated
one grant, 2018 · $100k · revenue +31%
CF
Center for Pan Asian Communit
one grant, 2022 · $75k · revenue -5%
AS
AMERICAN SUPPORTERS OF YEDID
one grant, 2018 · $35k · revenue -62%

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.

The Food Bank of Northeast Arkansas

The food bank of northeast arkansas provides hunger relief to people in need by raising awareness, securing resources, and distributing food through a network of non-profit agencies and programs.

Human Services

Hunger Action Los Angeles Inc

Hunger action los angeles ends hunger and promotes healthy eating through the market match program at 22 farmers markets, publication of peoples guide to welfare, health and other services, and involvement with low income residents in…

Education

The Food Bank for Central

Hunger relief network sharing millions of pounds of nutritious food with thousands of missourians.

Food & Nutrition

United Food Bank

Uniting communities to alleviate hunger.

Food & Nutrition

Animal Agriculture Alliance

The animal agriculture alliance is a nonprofit organization that helps bridge the communication gap between farm and fork. we connect food industry stakeholders, engage food chain influencers and promote consumer choice by helping key…

Food & Nutrition

Great Plains Food Bank

The Great Plains Food Bank is North Dakota's largest hunger-relief organization with a mission to end hunger through community partnerships. Our vision is a hunger-free North Dakota and western Minnesota. Both our mission and vision are…

Food & Nutrition

Feeding Hawaii Together

Address oahu's hunger crisis by providing consistent and reliable access to nutritional food.

Human Services

Alternatives to Hunger

Reduce hunger by: creating access to high quality, desirable food and other essentials; building a responsive regional hunger relief network; and disrupting racism, because of its historical and structural connection to hunger and poverty.

Food & Nutrition

Feeding San Diego

On a mission to connect every person facing hunger with nutritious meals... feeding san diego is on a mission to connect every person facing hunger with nutritious meals by maximizing food rescue. through direct service and community…

Food & Nutrition

Federation of Virginia Food Banks

Facilitating statewide collaboration among virginia's food banks, partners, and neighbors to improve nutrition security and empower strong, healthy communities.

—

The Food Alliance

Food alliance works at the juncture of science, business and values to define and promote sustainability in agriculture and the food industry, and to ensure safe and fair working conditions, humane treatment of animals, and careful…

Arts & Culture

Equitable Food Initiative

EFIs mission is to transform the produce industry and the lives of farmworkers by facilitating collaboration among workers, agricultural employers, retail buyers and consumer advocates.

Human Services

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Arkansas Foodbank and the most unlike its peers is Ucla Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 27 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 4% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/103

the rest of the field

11%

206,164/1,819,462

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

05the grantee network

100 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

99/100

Grantees still filing

77/100

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Food & Nutrition$3,345,745Crime & Legal$2,518,524Other$5,385,477Human Services$2,288,500Public Benefit$1,791,460Philanthropy$1,352,000Health$1,310,000

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.

Center on Budget and Policy PrioritiesDC69.2× affinity30 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities · Food Research & Action Center · Annie E Casey Foundation Inc · Economic Policy Institute · New Venture Fund · Community Catalyst Inc · American Heart Association Inc · Share Our Strength · Center for Law and Social Policy · WK Kellogg Foundation · Hopewell Fund · National Health Law Program 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 MAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

5get no government money at all

1rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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: Indiana Justice Project.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~7 months of operating runway; revenue held over 2 filed years.

Track record & reputation

medium risk

2 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 861217450 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 Indiana Justice Project, 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 7 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue held over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 44% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
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 MAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger?

Find your warmest path to MAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger 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.

MAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

100 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to MAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger?

More from the funding graph

MAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

100 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to MAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger?

More from the funding graph