Loading…
Loading…
Arizona · Nonprofit
Jewish Humanitarian Response (Arizona) is funded by 9 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $371,329 in grants to it, the largest being Jewish Federation of Metropolitan ($100,000). 1 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
Jewish Humanitarian Response has grown faster than half of the 4,418 international nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 4,418 international nonprofits $100k–$1M, FY2023
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.
100% of Jewish Humanitarian Response’s revenue is contributions — more reliant on donations than three-quarters of its peers (100% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 1 of the last 2 reported years ran a deficit.
$42k from 2 funders in 2024, up from $66k and 2 in 2022.
3 of 9 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 49% 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 Humanitarian Response’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
Jewish Humanitarian Response has a broad base — no single funder exceeds 27% of grant income, and it takes 3 funders to reach half.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 3 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2022 76% · 2023 38% · 2024 84% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
Jewish Humanitarian Response draws 100% of its grant income from funders outside Arizona — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 7 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 9 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.
94% of spending goes to programs.
0%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2023 (financials across 2022–2023), and the filings of 9funders 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