Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
THE JEWISH COMMUNITY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE FUND (California) is funded by 56 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $169,060,693 in grants to it, the largest being DART-L FOUNDATION ($108,778,020). 30 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.
Grant income rose $851k → $950k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
1 of 56 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 0% 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 THE JEWISH COMMUNITY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE FUND’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 30 of 56 funders by total. Association, not causation.
THE JEWISH COMMUNITY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE FUND leans on a few funders — its largest provides 64% of grant income and the top three 84%; 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 59% · 2018 59% · 2019 39% · 2020 69% · 2021 60% · 2022 75% · 2023 87% · 2024 78% · 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 THE JEWISH COMMUNITY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE FUND's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 54% 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.
THE JEWISH COMMUNITY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE FUND is locally rooted: 99% of its grant income comes from California 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 56 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.
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 56funders 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