Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

The Howard G & Samita B Jacobs Fndtn

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$135k
Granted FY2024still arriving
17
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$17k
Largest
01What you fund
01

What you funded, over time

By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 47% of THE HOWARD G & SAMITA B JACOBS FNDTN’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.

02FY2024 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k11 grants · $46k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $89k
$5,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$2.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS$17,000
JEWISH FEDERATION OF SAN DIEGO CTY$16,000
AMERICA GIVES$16,000
UNION FOR REFORMED JUDAISM$15,000
NEW ISRAEL FUND$15,000
UNION FR REFRMD JUDAISM D SAPERSTN$10,000
SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS$5,000
HEBREW UNION COLLEGE$5,000
PUBLIC ART FUND$5,000
ANTI DEFAMATION LEAGUE$5,000
AMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE$5,000
CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE$5,000
LAWYERS FOR CHILDREN$5,000
NO KID HUNGRY$5,000
CITY OF HOPE$2,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY21–21, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, 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.

area typical 10%JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF SAN DIEGO: $1k → 11%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

NH
MN
NY
MA
CT
CA
MD
DC
AL
GA

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$367k · 16 repeat orgs$76k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +8% since the first grant, against -3% for the ones you funded once.

16 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
8

Total granted

$367k
$45k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+8%
-3%

Still filing today

63%
88%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 69% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $31k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsInternationalHealthHuman ServicesEnvironmentCommunity ImprovementOther

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

  • AL
    ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE
    4× · 2021–2024 · $20k · revenue +34%
  • MA
    MAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger
    3× · 2021–2023 · $15k · revenue +10%
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MARIN COUNTY
    2× · 2021–2022 · $12k · revenue +27%

Funded once

  • NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC FUND INC
    one grant, 2021 · $16k · revenue -61%
  • RA
    RELIGIOUS ACTION CENTER
    one grant, 2021 · $15k
  • EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE
    one grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue -40%

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

04Your field

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.

1
American Jewish Committee

AJC's mission is to enhance the wellbeing of the Jewish people and Israel, and to advance human rights and democratic values in the United States and around the world. In pursuit of this mission, AJC advances democratic principles, fights…

Civil Rights
2
Actionaid Usa

Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…

Social Science
3
Committee to Protect Journalists Inc

The committee to protect journalists promotes press freedom worldwide and defends the right of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal. cpj ensures the free flow of news and commentary by taking action wherever…

Civil Rights
4
The Jewish Agency for Israel

The jewish agency binds jews across ideologies and civilizations together in a worldwide jewish family with israel at its center. it provides the global framework for aliyah, ensures global jewish safety, strengthens jewish identity and…

5
The International Institute On Race Equality and Human Rights

The international institute on race, equality and human rights contributes to the promotion and defense of human rights, through training, technical assistance, advocacy, and strategic litigation conducted at the regional and international…

International
6
Washington Office On Latin America

To advance human rights and social justice in the americas.

International
7
International Bridges to Justice

In recognition of the fundamental principles of the universal declaration of human rights, international bridges to justice (ibj) is dedicated to protecting the basic legal rights of ordinary citizens in developing countries. specifically,…

Crime & Legal
8
Jews for Racial and Economic Justice Action Inc

Jews For Racial & Economic Justice Action (JFREJ Action or JFREJ) is the home for Jewish New Yorkers organizing with our neighbors and allies to transform New York from a playground for the wealthy few into a real democracy for all of us.…

9
Women's Refugee Commission Inc

To improve the lives and protect the rights of women, children and youth displaced by conflict and crisis. the women's refugee commission envisions a world in which refugees are safe, healthy and reliant and seeks to drive change in…

Human Services
10
Us Middle East Project Inc

The organization's mission is to engage in non partisan analysis of u.s. foreign policy in the middle east, with special emphasis on the middle east peace process, and to present policymakers in the united states, in the region and in the…

International
11
Jewish Community Relations Council of New York

Jcrc-ny builds relationships to advance the values, interests and security of the new york jewish community and to create a more interconnected new york for all.

Civil Rights
12
Open Markets Institute

The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.

Education

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Council of Jewish Women Incorporated and the most unlike its peers is League of Women Voters of Marin County. 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.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyJewish Community FederationsEnvironmental Advocacy Orga…Community Arts OrganizationsFood Pantries & AssistanceLegal Aid & Immigration Ser…Christian Missionary Organi…
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 47 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number19%0%<5yr14%0%5–10yr20%4%10–20yr19%24%20–35yr13%36%35–55yr16%36%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value19%0%<5yr14%0%5–10yr20%4%10–20yr19%27%20–35yr13%35%35–55yr16%34%55yr+

The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.0%0/26
the rest of the field
10%
11,858/120,734

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.

04the grantee network

23 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 23 of the 31 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
23/23
Grantees still filing
11/23
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM — $60,000 · OtherUNION FOR REFORM JUDAISMJEWISH FEDERATION COUNCIL OF SAN DIEGO — $48,000 · OtherJEWISH FEDERATION COUNCIL OF SAN DIEGOHEBREW UNION COLLEGE-JEWISH INSTITUTE OF RELIGION — $20,000 · OtherHEBREW UNION COLLEGE-JEWISH INSTITUTE OF RELIGIONPUBLIC ART FUND INC — $20,000 · OtherPUBLIC ART FUND INCJEWISH FEDERATION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY — $16,000 · OtherJEWISH FEDERATION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTYMAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger — $15,000 · OtherMAZON A Jewish Response to HungerRELIGIOUS ACTION CENTER — $15,000 · OtherRELIGIOUS ACTION CENTERLAWYERS FOR CHILDREN — $15,000 · OtherLAWYERS FOR CHILDRENSHARE OUR STRENGTH — $13,000 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MARIN COUNTY — $11,500 · OtherUNION FR REFRMD JUDAISM D SAPERSTN — $10,000 · Other+5 more — $23,000 · Other+5 moreTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC — $68,000 · Civil RightsTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE…Southern Center for Human Rights — $26,000 · Civil RightsSouthern Center for Human R…ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE — $20,000 · Civil RightsANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUENAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC FUND INC — $16,000 · Civil RightsNAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC …EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE — $5,000 · Civil RightsNEW ISRAEL FUND — $64,000 · InternationalNEW ISRAEL FUNDAMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE INC — $20,000 · InternationalAMERICAN JEWISH WO…+3 more — $6,000 · International+3 moreAMERICA GIVES INC — $16,000 · PhilanthropyTHE JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC — $16,000 · PhilanthropyCLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC — $20,000 · EnvironmentNATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN INCORPORATED — $10,000 · Community ImprovementLAWYERS FOR CHILDREN INC — $5,000 · Crime & Legal
Other$266,500Civil Rights$135,000International$90,000Philanthropy$32,000Environment$20,000Community Improvement$10,000Crime & Legal$5,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC — $68,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetNEW ISRAEL FUND — $64,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetSouthern Center for Human Rights — $26,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetCLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC — $20,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE — $20,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE INC — $20,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetPUBLIC ART FUND INC — $20,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetNAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC FUND INC — $16,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY — $16,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICA GIVES INC — $16,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE JEWISH FEDERATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA INC — $16,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger — $15,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetSHARE OUR STRENGTH — $13,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MARIN COUNTY — $11,500 over 2y, 16% of budgetNATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN INCORPORATED — $10,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetSMILE TRAIN INC — $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetEQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE — $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLAWYERS FOR CHILDREN INC — $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC — $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INC — $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCaringBridge — $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF — $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SAN DIEGO — $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
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.

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.

Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCA7.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 The Howard G & Samita B Jacobs Fndtn 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 10%1%5%11%20%your share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 31 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph