· Private foundation
Menachem & Ahuva Shabat Family Foundation INC
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.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 81% of Menachem & Ahuva Shabat Family Foundation INC’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2023
- Under $10k8 grants · $21k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $146k
- $50k–250k10 grants · $1.2M
- $250k+1 grant · $280k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CHASDEI SHIMON Inc | $280,000 |
| NER NAFTALI INC | $210,000 |
| YESHIVA DARCHEI TORAH | $200,000 |
| MIDWEST REFUAH HEALTH CENTER | $200,000 |
| CCK FOUNDATION | $169,999 |
| CHICAGO COMMUNITY KOLLEL Inc | $100,000 |
| BAIS CHAIM DOVID EAST | $79,460 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF Yeshivas NESIVOS AHRON | $60,000 |
| CHICAGO PURIM FUND | $50,000 |
| TELSHE YESHIVA - CHICAGO | $50,000 |
| CP FUND | $50,000 |
| RABBI'S FUND | $47,500 |
| JEWISH FEDERATION OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO | $18,000 |
| TORAH UMESORAH | $18,000 |
| CHICAGO CHESED FUND | $17,500 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY19–23, $164k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
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 — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +83% since the first grant, against +6% for the ones you funded once.
14 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2023, 4 since wound down; 16 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2023, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $404k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- BCBAIS CHAIM DOVID EAST5× · 2019–2023 · $955k
- YDYESHIVA DARCHEI TORAH3× · 2020–2023 · $700k
- CSCHASDEI SHIMON INC5× · 2019–2023 · $453k
Funded once
- MMADRAIGOSone grant, 2019 · $43k
- YYTTone grant, 2021 · $36k
- FAFANATICS ALL IN FOUNDATIONone grant, 2020 · $35k · revenue -98%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
Maot chitim of greater chicago provides meaningful opportunities, through the delivery of food and other necessities, to help those in need celebrate jewish life with dignity and joy.
Make an authentic jewish education, coupled with an excellent secular education, available and affordable to all jewish families in the chicagoland community.
Helping jewish community with rent, utilities, repairs, ect.
Jewish Free Loan Chicago helps Chicagoans discover small personal loans with zero-interest in an effort to cut out the need for predatory lending, often in the form of risky payday loans and car title loans.
Chabad of River North and Fulton Market is an organization dedicated to furthering the religious, educational, and chartable needs of the Jewish Community and /or of the neighbors of River North and Fulton Market.
To support religious, charitable, scientific, literary and/or educational programs
Our mission is to provide assistance to indigent jewish families in the form of food, medicical assistance, clothing and crisis management.
A post-secondary school offering an educational program in talmudic study
To provide medical support to families in need
Promote jewish religious observance and studies of jewish texts among children.
To further jewish education in israel
To provide financial assistance to jewish educational and charitable causes.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chicago Chesed Fund and the most unlike its peers is Hatzalah Chicago. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 16 years old; the field is 15. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 20% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
16 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 16 of the 50 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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.
- Who funds MIDWEST REFUAH HEALTH CENTER ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO CHESED FUND ↗
- Who funds JEWISH FEDERATION OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVAS NESIVOS AHRON C/O MICHAEL FRIEDMAN ↗
- Who funds CP FUND ↗
- Who funds AGUDATH ISRAEL OF ILLINOIS ↗
- Who funds FANATICS ALL IN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LIBENU ↗
- Who funds PENIMI INC ↗
- Who funds CAMP MATZIV INC ↗
- Who funds Bais Yaakov High School of Chicago ↗
- Who funds ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS FOUNDATIONINC ↗
- Who funds HATZALAH CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds MAALOT ↗
- Who funds LIMUDEI DA'AS INC ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · Todd a and Raphaela Stern Family Foundation · Yeshivas Kesser Yonah · Aj & Sl Stern Family Foundation · Bitton Family Foundation Inc · The Ojc Fund · The Pharmore Drugs Charitable Foundation · Alice G Hanson Family Foundation · Jewish Communal Fund · Lakewood Cheder School Inc · Sidney and Lisa Glenner Foundation · Lev Zahav NFP
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 organization Menachem & Ahuva Shabat Family Foundation INC 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.
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 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Menachem & Ahuva Shabat Family Foundation INC?
Find your warmest path to Menachem & Ahuva Shabat Family Foundation INC 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.