Loading…
Loading…
Illinois · Nonprofit
KESHET (Illinois) is funded by 175 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $12,134,602 in grants to it, the largest being Jewish Federation of Metropolitan ($1,832,375). 110 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. 1 of the last 6 reported years ran a deficit.
$49k from 7 funders in 2025, up from $384k and 30 in 2017.
21 of 175 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 33% 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 KESHET’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 30 of 175 funders by total. Association, not causation.
KESHET has a broad base — no single funder exceeds 15% of grant income, and it takes 5 funders to reach half.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 5 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 13% · 2018 27% · 2019 16% · 2020 16% · 2021 21% · 2022 24% · 2023 28% · 2024 47% · 2025 51% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
38% of KESHET's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 63% 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.
KESHET is locally rooted: 78% of its grant income comes from Illinois 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 175 funders put you typical 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.
77% of spending goes to programs.
87%
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 FY2023 (financials across 2018–2023), and the filings of 175funders 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