Loading…
Loading…
Massachusetts · Nonprofit
JEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL (Massachusetts) is funded by 30 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $13,241,995 in grants to it, the largest being Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Inc ($11,475,704). 17 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
JEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL runs a healthier operating margin than half of the 1,483 international nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 1,483 international nonprofits $1M–$10M, FY2024
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
93% of JEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL’s revenue is contributions — about as donation-reliant as the typical peer (97% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 1 of the last 7 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $9k → $10k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
9 of 30 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 93% 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 JEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
JEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL leans on a few funders — its largest provides 87% of grant income and the top three 92%; half comes from just 1 funder.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 1 funder to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 54% · 2018 95% · 2019 97% · 2020 95% · 2021 91% · 2022 80% · 2023 71% · 2024 59% · 2025 100% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
39% of JEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 57% 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.
JEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL is locally rooted: 96% of its grant income comes from Massachusetts funders.
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 30 funders put you under-funded 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.
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.
69% of spending goes to programs.
91%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Operates in 1 state
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2024 (financials across 2018–2024), and the filings of 30funders 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