· Private foundation
The Lilac Fund Inc
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.
Read this first · the figures below need context
59% of The Lilac Fund Inc’s FY2024 grant dollars went to New Israel Fund, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 11 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k19 grants · $35k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $81k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $150k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NEW ISRAEL FUND | $150,000 |
| KRIEGER SCHECHTER DAY SCHOOL (CHIZUK AMUNO) | $35,000 |
| AMERICAN JEWISH JOINT DISTRIBUTION FUND | $20,000 |
| T'RUAH | $15,000 |
| PARK CITY FOUNDATION (LIVE PC GIVE PC) | $10,544 |
| AMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE | $5,000 |
| NAFOO | $5,000 |
| ART WITH A HEART | $4,000 |
| WORLD BICYCLE RELIEF | $3,020 |
| HEALING ACROSS THE DIVIDE | $2,575 |
| J STREET EDUCATION FUND | $2,070 |
| ACLU FOUNDATION OF MD | $2,070 |
| EMMA'S TORCH | $1,590 |
| ADELENTE | $1,545 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,500 |
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 (FY21–24, $24k) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +17% since the first grant, against +10% for the ones you funded once.
24 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2024, 8 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, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $29k 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
- TT'RUAH4× · 2021–2024 · $32k · revenue +11%
WORLD BICYCLE RELIEF NFP3× · 2022–2024 · $23k · revenue +17%- TCTHE CAVANAGH HOUSE4× · 2021–2024 · $21k · revenue +78%
Funded once
- CACHIZUK AMUNO FUNDone grant, 2021 · $76k
- CACHIZUK AMUNO CONGREGATIONone grant, 2021 · $15k
- GDGALILLEE DREAMERS (NA FRIENDS OF ORANIM)one grant, 2022 · $4k
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.
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…
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.…
To strengthen israel's future in these areas: 1)providing new immigrants with assistance in a few key areas: representing them as they navigate government ministries and assisting them with their challenges as new immigrants to israel.…
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,…
Since 2022, the pfap foundation has built, developed and sponsored critical projects advancing israel, judaism, zionism and the welfare of the jewish people in the jewish state. in furtherance of our mission, we focus on supporting…
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…
The principal and primary intent of the organization is to support kohelet policy forum (the "forum"), a jerusalem-based non-profit policy center founded in 2012, comprised of leading academics and researchers.
The abrahamic reunion works to build sustainable peace with diverse faith communities in the holy land. we foster harmony by exploring common abrahamic values in order to create deep and lasting connections between people.
Anti-defamation league (the "league") is a leading anti-hate organization that was founded in 1913 in response to an escalating climate of antisemitism and bigotry. (continued in sch. o)its timeless mission is to stop the defamation of the…
Us friends of dror israel is the american philanthropic partner of dror israel, an organization whose mission is to effect meaningful, longterm educational and social change in israeli society in order to promote solidarity, social…
The international center for conciliation fosters dignity and cooperation in conflict ridden communities through reconciliation and community preparedness.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Good People Fund Inc and the most unlike its peers is Shorefast Us Fund. 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 25 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% 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.
32 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. 32 of the 55 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 NEW ISRAEL FUND ↗
- Who funds T'RUAH ↗
- Who funds WORLD BICYCLE RELIEF NFP ↗
- Who funds THE CAVANAGH HOUSE ↗
- Who funds Art With a Heart Inc ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE INC ↗
- Who funds PARK CITY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds EMMA'S TORCH LTD ↗
- Who funds ACLU FOUNDATION OF MARYLAND INC ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds NORTH AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ORANIM INC ↗
- Who funds HIAS INC ↗
- Who funds THE ABRAHAM INITIATIVES INC ↗
- Who funds SEEDS OF PEACE INC ↗
- Who funds THE GAZA MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds J STREET EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds NETWORK FOR GOOD ↗
- Who funds THE GOOD PEOPLE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds PARKS AND PEOPLE INC ↗
- Who funds AMANDLA DEVELOPMENT INC ↗
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: Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore · Baltimore Community Foundation Inc · T Rowe Price Program for Charitable Giving Inc · David & Barbara B Hirschhorn Foundation Inc · The United Way of Central Maryland Inc · The Abell Foundation Inc · The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation Inc · The Frier Foundation Inc · The Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Foundation Inc · Annie E Casey Foundation Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Jpmorgan Chase 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 The Lilac Fund 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.
- Hias Inc — 88% of income from government
- Parks and People Inc — 43% of income from government
- Public Justice Center Inc — 5% of income from government
- Art With a Heart Inc — 4% 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 The Lilac Fund Inc?
Find your warmest path to The Lilac Fund 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.