Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Jacobson 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.

$104k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$48k
Largest
01What it funds
0165% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$499kInternational$141kPhilanthropy$37kRecreation & Sports$11kEducation$5kYouth Development$2kHuman Services$2kOther$0
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $94k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$85k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Chabad Of Southwest Broward$48,000
KEREN CHOMESH$36,000
Goodness and Kindness Inc$10,000
VARIOUS CHARITIES$3,800
BETH RIVKA$3,600
OHOLEI TORAH$2,500
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, $245k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%KEREN CHOMESH: $101k → 20%KEREN CHOMESH: $100k → 20%KEREN CHOMESH: $36k → 20%KEREN CHOMESH: $9k → 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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 17 repeat orgs$70k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +46% since the first grant, against +3% for those funded once.

17 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 12 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
16

Total granted

$1.1M
$67k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+46%
+3%

Still filing today

29%
6%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k 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
ReligionHuman ServicesPhilanthropyOther
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

  • SC
    SOLOMON CENTER INC
    3× · 2018–2022 · $25k · revenue +23%
  • CG
    CAMP GAN ISRAEL INC
    2× · 2018–2020 · $11k · revenue ×77
  • LH
    LAHAK HANOCHOS INC
    2× · 2017–2019 · $2k · revenue +14%

Funded once

  • CH
    CROWN HEIGHTS CHEVRA SIMCHAS SHABBOS V'YOM TOV INC
    one grant, 2017 · $37k · revenue +3%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF TZOHAR
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue -5%
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
Zohar Hatorah Inc

Religious School

Religion
2
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

—
3
Chevras Shabbos Kodesh Podcast Fellowship
Religion
4
Ohr Olam Corp

publish religious books

Religion
5
Hayashar Vehatov Inc

The furtherance of primacy of orthodox jewish jurisprudence

Religion
6
Chevrah Lomdei Mishnah Inc

Promoting study of Mishnah and other Jewish texts

Religion
7
Shaarei Halacha Inc
Philanthropy
8
Merkaz Hatorah Community Kollel

Advance study of the talmud and jewish law by torah scholars

Religion
9
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
10
Kolel Zichron Avrohom Inc

Supervision of kosher meal preparation

Religion
11
Hadar Hatorah Rabbinical College and Subsidary Machon Chana

Religious education

Education
12
Chabad Jewish Center

The Organization operates an religious outreach center to promote and understand Judaism and the laws of Kosher.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Yagdil Torah Inc; the most unlike its peers is Solomon Center Inc. 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

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 34 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)
6/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BETH RIVKA: $276,560 · OtherBETH RIVKAMACHNE ISRAEL INC: $141,333 · OtherMACHNE ISRAEL INCVARIOUS CHARITIES: $139,235 · OtherVARIOUS CHARITIESIndividual grant recipient: $57,698 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCHABAD OF WEST KENDALL: $54,433 · OtherCHABAD OF WEST KENDALLChabad Of Southwest Broward: $48,500 · OtherChabad Of Southwest BrowardChabad Outreach Center INC: $40,000 · OtherGOODNESS AND KINDNESS INC: $38,000 · Other+20 more: $79,852 · Other+20 moreKEREN HACHOMESH INC: $245,100 · Human ServicesKEREN HACHOMESH INCCROWN HEIGHTS CHEVRA SIMCHAS SHABBOS V'YOM TOV INC: $36,500 · PhilanthropySOLOMON CENTER INC: $25,000 · ReligionLAHAK HANOCHOS INC: $2,233 · ReligionYAGDIL TORAH INC: $1,940 · Religion+1 more: $933 · Religion
Other$875,611Human Services$245,100Philanthropy$36,500Religion$30,106

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetKEREN HACHOMESH INC: $245,100 over 4y, 18% of budgetSOLOMON CENTER INC: $25,000 over 3y, 2.1% of budgetCAMP GAN ISRAEL INC: $11,000 over 2y, 10% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF TZOHAR: $5,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetLAHAK HANOCHOS INC: $2,233 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetYAGDIL TORAH INC: $1,940 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetJEWISH EDUCATIONAL MEDIA: $933 over 2y, 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 KEREN HACHOMESH INC ↗
  • Who funds CROWN HEIGHTS CHEVRA SIMCHAS SHABBOS V'YOM TOV INC ↗
  • Who funds SOLOMON CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds CAMP GAN ISRAEL INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF TZOHAR ↗
  • Who funds LAHAK HANOCHOS INC ↗
  • Who funds YAGDIL TORAH INC ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MEDIA ↗

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 FundNY22.6× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Communal Fund · Nash Charity Foundation Inc · The Ben-Abou Foundation · Barber Family Foundation · Lets Make It Happen Ny Inc · Krinsky Foundation Inc · The Rav-Noy Family Foundation Inc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Tgvzg18 Foundation · Saul Schottenstein Foundation C · Crain-Maling Foundation · The Ojc 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 The Jacobson Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Jacobson Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 34 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 Jacobson’s filings →

    More from the funding graph