· Public charity
Senior Community Services Inc
The organization provides services to the disabled population by administering a pooled special needs trust for disabled individuals who cannot care for themselves.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 44 grants below total $895,772 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $985,128 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $89,356 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k17 grants · $115k
- $10k–50k22 grants · $392k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $388k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| KOLLEL AISH TAMID | $155,000 |
| CONGREGATION KEREN HAGEMACH | $70,500 |
| MESIVTA KEREN ORAH | $60,420 |
| CONGREGATION LEV AVRAHAM INC | $52,000 |
| YESHIVA OHR YITZCHAK INC | $50,560 |
| AMUDIM COMMUNITY RESOURCES INC | $40,700 |
| TOMCHEI SHABBOS DLAKEWOOD INC | $37,800 |
| BONEI OLAM INC | $31,000 |
| LEV BEREL INC | $27,000 |
| KHAL TOMS RIVER | $23,550 |
| CHAI LIFELINE INC | $21,850 |
| MERCAZ L'TAHARAH U'MIKVAOT | $21,600 |
| SIMCHA FOUNDATION | $18,500 |
| SERVICES FOR HIDDEN INTELLIGENCE | $18,000 |
| BNOS ORCHOS CHAIM INC | $14,500 |
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 (FY17–24, $345k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, 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.
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.
59 repeat relationships — 38 still active in FY2024, 21 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $95k 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
- MFMABAS FUND INC7× · 2017–2024 · $493k · revenue +336%
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC5× · 2018–2023 · $400k · revenue +72%
- BMBETH MEDRASH GOVOHA OF LAKEWOOD INC6× · 2017–2024 · $281k · revenue +15%
Funded once
- CKCONGREGATION KHAL LEV AVROHOM INCone grant, 2022 · $61k
- SFSERVICES FOR CHILDREN WITH HIDDEN INTELLIGENCEgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $32k · revenue +107%
- CACONGREGATION AVODAH BRURAHone grant, 2023 · $24k
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.
Religious School
To operate a religious school for high school and post high school students.
Providing jewish education to high school age students.
Providing jewish and secular education for elementary school aged children.
Providing jewish and secular education for elementary school aged children.
Parochial elementary school with a focus on sephardic tradition.
To provide religious Jewish education.
Providing secular and religious education for elementary and high school aged students
The purpose of this organization is to support indigent torah scholars and their families by providing stipends and additional funds at jewish holiday times.
Religious Teaching
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Emunah of America Inc and the most unlike its peers is Simcha 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.
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 22 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 8% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 11% 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.
51 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. 51 of the 99 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 MABAS FUND INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC ↗
- Who funds BETH MEDRASH GOVOHA OF LAKEWOOD INC ↗
- Who funds AMUDIM COMMUNITY RESOURCES INC ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA OHR YITZCHOK ↗
- Who funds TOMCHEI SHABBOS D'LAKEWOOD INC ↗
- Who funds Bonei Olam Inc ↗
- Who funds BNOS ORCHOS CHAIM INC ↗
- Who funds LAKEWOOD CHEDER SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds CHAI LIFELINE INC ↗
- Who funds American Friends of Yeshivat Ateret Hatora Inc ↗
- Who funds BETH MEDRASH GOVOHA OF NEW YORK INC ↗
- Who funds PEYLIM LEV LACHIM ↗
- Who funds LEV BEREL INC ↗
- Who funds TORAH LINKS OF LAKEWOOD INC ↗
- Who funds MESIVTA KEREN ORAH ↗
- Who funds SIMCHA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AHAVAS TZEDAKA INC ↗
- Who funds Services For Hidden Intelligence ↗
- Who funds DAAT CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds KIDS-N-CAMP FUND INC ↗
- Who funds TZUR FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER ↗
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: The Ojc Fund · Donors Fund Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · National Society for Hebrew Day Schools · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Zichron Btz Tzedakah Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · The Sorala Foundation · The Zev and Susan Munk Family Foundation · Jacob and Malka Fischer Foundation · Jsp Family Foundation · The Weiskopf Family Foundation
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 Senior Community Services 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Yeshivas Ohr Hatorah Inc — 28% of income from government
- Mesivta Keren Orah — 10% of income from government
- Mesivta Nezer Hatorah — 7% of income from government
- Yeshiva Kol Torah Inc — 3% of income from government
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 Senior Community Services Inc?
Find your warmest path to Senior Community Services 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.