Skip to content
Mp Foundation Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Mp Foundation Inc

Its FY2019 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$22k
Granted FY2019
23
Grants FY2019
6
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01FY2019 · 23 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$495
Median grant
6
States reached
$11k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$5,062
JEM FOUNDATION INC$3,500
CHABAD OCEAN SYNAGOGUE INC$1,760
ASSOCIATED BETH RIVKA SCHOOL FOR GIRLS INC$1,500
FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES$1,420
CHABAD OF THE WATERWAYS$1,265
CHABAD TORAH CENTER INC$1,157
SALANTER AKIBA RIVERDALE ACADEMY$1,125
YALDEI SHLUCHEI HAREBBE SPECIAL NEEDS ORGANIZATION$1,100
MY JUDAISM INC$950
CHABAD GREATER HILTON HEAD$500
CHABAD YOUNG PROFESSIONALS$495
FRIENDS OF CHABAD OF HEBRON$400
CHABAD OF TRIBECA$393
CHEDER LUBAVITCH ARIZONA$350
02The need
02

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 (FY19–19, $55) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, 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.

area typical 11%JEWISH LATIN CENTER NYC: $55 → 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.
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

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
American Friends of Amshinover Yeshiva Jerusalem Inc

Support of religious schools in Israel

International
2
American Friends of Kollel Beis Hillel

Support of religious activities in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel

Religion
3
Fund for Jewish Education Inc
Philanthropy
4
Ziv Israel Association
—
5
Chabad Lametayel Inc

encourage and facilitate the observance of traditional orthodox Jewish practices around the world.

—
6
The Keren Rachaim Fund
—
7
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
8
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
9
University of Judaism Foundation
—
10
American Friends of Heichal Yerushalayim Inc

The funding of heichal yerushalayim yeshiva(religious shcool) to facilitate and promote judaic studies.

Youth Development
11
Sherit Isroel
—
12
Friends of Jabad Uruguay Inc

Providing funding for jewish learning, observance and charitable work in uruguay

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Committee for Furtherance of Jewish Education and Affilliates; the most unlike its peers is Friends of the Israel Defense Forces. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
03the grantee network

8 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. 8 of the 23 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $5,062 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCHABAD OCEAN SYNAGOGUE INC: $1,760 · OtherCHABAD OCEAN SYNAGOGUE INCASSOCIATED BETH RIVKA SCHOOL FOR GIRLS: $1,500 · OtherASSOCIATED BETH RIVKA SCHOOL FOR GIRLSCHABAD OF THE WATERWAYS: $1,265 · OtherCHABAD OF THE WATERWAYSCHABAD TORAH CENTER INC: $1,157 · OtherCHABAD TORAH CENTER INCSALANTER AKIBA RIVERDALE ACADEMY: $1,125 · OtherSALANTER AKIBA RIVERDALE ACADEMYMY JUDAISM INC: $950 · OtherMY JUDAISM INC+10 more: $2,655 · Other+10 moreJEM FOUNDATION INC: $3,500 · ReligionJEM FOUNDATION INCFRIENDS OF CHABAD OF HEBRON INC: $400 · ReligionFRIENDS OF CHABAD O…FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: $1,420 · InternationalYaldei Shluchei Harebbe Special Needs Organization: $1,100 · PhilanthropyCheder Lubavitch Arizona: $350 · EducationJEWISH LATIN CENTER INC: $55 · Human Services
Other$15,474Religion$3,900International$1,420Philanthropy$1,100Education$350Human Services$55

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 budgetJEM FOUNDATION INC: $3,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetASSOCIATED BETH RIVKA SCHOOL FOR GIRLS: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: $1,420 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYaldei Shluchei Harebbe Special Needs Organization: $1,100 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF CHABAD OF HEBRON INC: $400 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCheder Lubavitch Arizona: $350 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH LATIN CENTER INC: $55 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

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 Communal FundThe Ojc FundHp Foundation IncLets Make It Happen N…The Rapoport Family F…Nash Charity Foundati…Gs Donor Advised Phil…Vanguard Charitable E…Morgan Stanley Global…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Jewish Communal FundNY25× affinity13 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · The Ojc Fund · Hp Foundation Inc · Lets Make It Happen Ny Inc · The Rapoport Family Foundation Inc · Nash Charity Foundation Inc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Mp Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mp Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Mp Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Mp 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.

    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 23 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Mp’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