Loading…
Loading…
New York · Nonprofit
AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE (New York) is funded by 901 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $166,270,724 in grants to it, the largest being The Chicago Community Trust ($28,041,300). 493 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 0 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
$1.5M from 52 funders in 2025, up from $2.6M and 157 in 2017.
109 of 901 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 63% of grant dollars received. That money is really individual donors directing a sponsor; the institutions to cultivate are the non-DAF funders.
From the IRS filings of AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 30 of 901 funders by total. Association, not causation.
AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE has a broad base — no single funder exceeds 17% of grant income, and it takes 8 funders to reach half.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 8 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 9% · 2018 41% · 2019 11% · 2020 26% · 2021 28% · 2022 12% · 2023 29% · 2024 15% · 2025 17% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
36% of AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 55% give in more than one year at all.
Share of funders still giving k years after their first recorded grant, pooled across every acquisition cohort. A funder counts as retained in a year only if it made a grant that year.
AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE draws 72% of its grant income from funders outside New York — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 41 states in all.
In-state vs out-of-state, by year
Grantmakers that don’t fund you yet, surfaced two ways: they back organizations that share your funders, or their grantees resemble your mission. The ones both signals agree on come first. Your 901 funders put you well-backed among the 400 organizations that share them.
From the co-funder graph (funders backing at least two comparable organizations, shrunk for grantee count, donor-advised and mega-funds excluded) and the universe embeddings. A research starting point; overlap is association, not a guarantee of fit.
Grants and contracts to this organization from federal (USASpending) and state checkbooks, reconciled to its EIN. $9k on record.
Federal grants vs contracts are distinguished; state line items keep their reported category. Matched by name + geography (the BMF), so coverage is partial and precision-first.
Nonprofits whose mission and program text most resemble this one, by semantic similarity over the universe of US filings — the closest peers, and often the clearest route to shared or prospective funders.
Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.
80% of spending goes to programs.
87%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Operates in 28 states
Part of a family of 7 related entities
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2024 (financials across 2017–2024), and the filings of 901funders that report grants to it. “On record” means captured in the filings we have parsed — a funder that does not e-file, or whose grant detail is not itemized, will not appear. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind. view filing