Skip to content
Swieca Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Swieca Family Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$4.6M
Granted FY2024still arriving
18
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$4.5M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$21MScience & Tech$613kReligion$598kPhilanthropy$545kInternational$455kHuman Services$8kYouth Development$4kHealth$548Other$0
02FY2024 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k14 grants · $5k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $53k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $84k
  • $250k+1 grant · $4.5M
$390
Median grant
3
States reached
$71M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SWIECA FAMILY PHILANTHROPIC FUND AT FIDELITY CHARITABLE DONOR ADVISED FUND$4,485,803
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY$84,000
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MOSDOS MONTREAL$31,200
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF OHR HATALMUD$22,150
THE ALTNEU SYNAGOGUE$1,800
YOUNG ISRAEL$960
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ORA VESIMCHA$720
THE JEWISH CENTER OF ATLANTIC BEACH$430
ISRAEL AMERICAN COUNCIL$390
HAVRUTA$267
Individual grant recipient$182
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAOZ HAIM$182
MANHATTAN SEPHARDIC CONGREGATION$180
Individual grant recipient$122
Individual grant recipient$75
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–24, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 11% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND: $1k → 6%DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND: $1k → 6%DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND: $1k → 6%DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND: $1k → 6%DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND: $1k → 6%ISRAEL AMERICAN COUNCIL: $390 → 14%DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND: $1k → 6%ACHIEZER: $180 → 6%CHAI4EVER: $360 → 11%MISASKIM: $180 → 20%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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$22M · 30 repeat orgs$144k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +145% since the first grant, against +64% for those funded once.

30 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2024, 21 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

30
57

Total granted

$22M
$140k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+145%
+64%

Still filing today

20%
19%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesReligionEducationInternationalHealthYouth DevelopmentOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • CF
    Central Fund of Israel
    2× · 2017–2018 · $381k · revenue +145%
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MOSDOS MONTREAL INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $262k · revenue +170%
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAAGALIM INC
    6× · 2017–2022 · $73k · revenue +406%

Funded once

  • TF
    The Frisch Schoolgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $50k · revenue +81%
  • AS
    ATHERET SHALOM TSEDAKAH VACHESS
    one grant, 2018 · $19k
  • JR
    JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER
    one grant, 2018 · $18k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its 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
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
2
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
3
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
4
American Friends of Amshinover Yeshiva Jerusalem Inc

Support of religious schools in Israel

International
5
Sherit Isroel
—
6
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
—
7
University of Judaism Foundation
—
8
American Friends of Yeshiva Gedolah Matisyahu Inc

To award scholarships and grants to students from the United States attending Yeshivas Gedolah Matisyahu in the State of Israel

Education
9
American Friends of Zvi Latzadik Dba Breslov Research Institute Jerusalem

To foster jewish religious education and disseminate the teachings of rabbi nachman of breslov through publication and distribution of books and cds, as well as seminars, lectures and study groups.

International
10
American Friends of Oseh Chayil

To further jewish education in israel

Religion
11
American Friends of Even Yisroel Charitable Foundation
Philanthropy
12
Friends of Meor Israel

Education and religious activities and research

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Communal Fund; the most unlike its peers is Manhattan Sephardic Congregation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

21 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. 21 of the 98 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)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/21
Grantees still filing
16/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SWIECA FAMILY PHILANTHROPIC FUND AT VANGUARD CHARITABLE DONOR ADVISED FUND: $12,210,337 · OtherSWIECA FAMILY PHILANTHROPIC FUND AT VANGUARD CHARITABLE DONOR ADVISED FUNDSWIECA FAMILY PHILANTHROPIC FUND AT FIDELITY CHARITABLE DONOR ADVISED FUND: $7,798,515 · OtherSWIECA FAMILY PHILANTHROPIC FUND AT FIDELITY CHARITABLE DONOR ADVISED FUND+79 more: $1,397,158 · Other+79 moreJEWISH COMMUNAL FUND: $500,000 · Philanthropy+1 more: $2,160 · PhilanthropyCentral Fund of Israel: $381,113 · InternationalAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAAGALIM INC: $73,150 · InternationalAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MOSDOS MONTREAL INC: $262,200 · Religion+3 more: $485 · ReligionThe Frisch School: $50,000 · Education+2 more: $1,007 · EducationFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $42,000 · Community ImprovementDAVIS MEMORIAL FUND INC: $7,200 · Human ServicesISRAELI-AMERICAN COUNCIL: $390 · Human ServicesCHAI 4EVER INC: $360 · Human Services+2 more: $360 · Human Services
Other$21,406,010Philanthropy$502,160International$454,263Religion$262,685Education$51,007Community Improvement$42,000Human Services$8,310

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetJEWISH COMMUNAL FUND: $500,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MOSDOS MONTREAL INC: $262,200 over 8y, 10% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAAGALIM INC: $73,150 over 6y, 10.0% of budgetThe Frisch School: $50,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $42,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMANHATTAN SEPHARDIC CONGREGATION: $41,852 over 8y, 0.6% of budgetDAVIS MEMORIAL FUND INC: $7,200 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetIsrael Next Generation INC: $3,600 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF ORA VESIMCHA: $2,160 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetYESHIVA UNIVERSITY: $825 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetISRAELI-AMERICAN COUNCIL: $390 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHAI 4EVER INC: $360 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKEREN YOM TOV INC: $260 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBEER YITZHAK FOUNDATION INC co Ben Malakh: $182 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN HAYELED: $182 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetOhr Torah Stone Institutions of Israel: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMISASKIM CORP: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetACHIEZER COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER INC: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetALEPH LEARNING CENTER: $45 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF YAD SARAH INC: $18 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.

  • Who funds JEWISH COMMUNAL FUND ↗
  • Who funds Central Fund of Israel ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MOSDOS MONTREAL INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAAGALIM INC ↗
  • Who funds The Frisch School ↗
  • Who funds FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
  • Who funds MANHATTAN SEPHARDIC CONGREGATION ↗
  • Who funds DAVIS MEMORIAL FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds Israel Next Generation INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ORA VESIMCHA ↗

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 FundSwieca Children Found…The Ojc FundJack Adjmi Family Fou…The Goldberg Family C…Spodek Family Foundat…The Foop FoundationAlyad Foundation IncJewish Federation of …FjcNational Philanthropi…Gs Donor Advised Phil…
Jewish Communal FundNY33.3× affinity20 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · Swieca Children Foundation · The Ojc Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · The Goldberg Family Charitable Foundation Inc · Spodek Family Foundation · The Foop Foundation · Alyad Foundation Inc · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · Fjc · National Philanthropic Trust · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Chai 4EVER Inc: 2% of income from government
  • The Frisch School: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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 98 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Swieca Family’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