Skip to content
Sentinel Charitable Alliance Inc at a glance

· Public charity

Sentinel Charitable Alliance Inc

Provides grants and donations to charitable organizations that provide public and social assistance to underserved populations through taking ownership in investment opportunities that may include business and real estate.

$408k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
9
States reached
$60k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0187% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2024 to 2025.

Religion$197kHealth$105kYouth Development$48kInternational$48kAnimals$12kOther$0
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $396,959, the rows itemized in this filing. The $407,959 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $11,000 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $18k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $259k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $119k
$30,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$25M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONGREGATION BEIT EPHRAIM$60,000
EASTERN IDAHO REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AUXILARY INC$59,377
HIMALAYAN CATARACT PROJECT$47,619
SMILE TRAIN INC$46,052
FONDATION LEOPOLD LUC GUILLAUME$39,000
YJP OF HOBOKEN AND JERSEY CITY INC$30,000
THE SHUL OF DOWNTOWN INC$30,000
VERMONT ORGANIZATION FOR JEWISH EDUCATION LUBAVITCH$30,000
BERNIE MOORE MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL INC$25,000
ARIZONE ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE INC$11,500
JUST IN TIME FOR FOSTER YOUTH$9,411
JESUS CULTURE$9,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY24–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 71% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ARIZONE ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE INC: $12k → 11%REIDY CREEK PTA: $10k → 11%JESUS CULTURE: $9k → 12%SMILE TRAIN INC: $46k → 17%BERNIE MOORE MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL INC: $25k → 5%FONDATION LEOPOLD LUC GUILLAUME: $39k → 11%THE SHUL OF DOWNTOWN INC: $30k → 15%CONGREGATION BEIT EPHRAIM: $60k → 21%YJP OF HOBOKEN AND JERSEY CITY INC: $30k → 14%HIMALAYAN CATARACT PROJECT: $48k → 9%VERMONT ORGANIZATION FOR JEWISH EDUCATION LUBAVITCH: $30k → 10%JUST IN TIME FOR FOSTER YOUTH: $9k → 11%FOUNDATION GUILLAUME: $9k → 11%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

VT
ID
MI
NY
NJ
CA
AZ
TX
FL
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 15 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)
7/7
Grantees still filing
3/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONGREGATION BEIT EPHRAIM: $60,000 · OtherCONGREGATION BEIT EPHRAIMEASTERN IDAHO REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AUXILIARY INC: $59,377 · OtherEASTERN IDAHO REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AUXILIARY INCSMILE TRAIN INC: $46,052 · OtherSMILE TRAIN INCYJP OF HOBOKEN AND JERSEY CITY INC: $30,000 · OtherYJP OF HOBOKEN AND JERSEY CITY INCVERMONT ORGANIZATION FOR JEWISH EDUCATION LUBAVITCH: $30,000 · OtherVERMONT ORGANIZATION FOR JEWISH EDUCATION LUBAVITCHSHUL OF DOWNTOWN INC: $30,000 · OtherSHUL OF DOWNTOWN INCIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · Other+2 more: $18,000 · Other+2 moreFONDATION LEOPOLD LUC GUILLAUME: $39,000 · Youth DevelopmentFONDATION LE…JUST IN TIME FOR FOSTER YOUTH: $9,411 · Youth DevelopmentJUST IN TIME…HIMALAYAN CATARACT PROJECT INC: $47,619 · InternationalHIMALAYAN CA…Bernie Moore Ministries International In: $25,000 · ReligionBernie Moo…BAJA BOUND MINISTRIES FKA NATIONAL YOUTH INNOVATIONS INC: $13,000 · ReligionBAJA BOUND…THE ARIZONA ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE: $11,500 · Animals
Other$283,429Youth Development$48,411International$47,619Religion$38,000Animals$11,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSMILE TRAIN INC: $46,052 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFONDATION LEOPOLD LUC GUILLAUME: $39,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetBAJA BOUND MINISTRIES FKA NATIONAL YOUTH INNOVATIONS INC: $13,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetJUST IN TIME FOR FOSTER YOUTH: $9,411 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Network for GoodAmerican Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Network for GoodDC10.5× affinity6 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Himalayan Cataract Project Inc: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
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.

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 15 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Sentinel Charitable Alliance’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