· Private foundation
Alsdorf Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k5 grants · $25k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $30k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $370k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO | $210,000 |
| SWEDISH FOUNDATION | $105,000 |
| BISHOP BLANCHET HIGH SCHOOL | $55,000 |
| EDMONDS WOODWAY HS ATHLETIC BOOSTER CLUB | $30,000 |
| WHIDBEY WATERSHED STEWARDS | $5,000 |
| ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF SEATTLE | $5,000 |
| ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF EVERETT | $5,000 |
| WHIDBEY ISLAND NOURISHES | $5,000 |
| DAWSON PLACE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER - SNOHOMISH COUNTY | $5,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY18–24, $121k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 29% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +37% since the first grant, against +26% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $75k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- TATHE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO4× · 2018–2025 · $1.8M · revenue +34%
- WHWe Heart Seattle3× · 2021–2023 · $100k · revenue +244%
- RCRECOVERY CAFE3× · 2021–2023 · $100k · revenue +44%
Funded once
- WCWINNETKA CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHone grant, 2021 · $125k
- IDINTERNATIONAL DROP IN CENTERone grant, 2023 · $60k · revenue +5%
- SCSeattle Children's Foundationgraduatedone grant, 2024 · $53k · revenue +49%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
The organization's mission is to educate students for creative occupations in diverse fields of arts and media.
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
To promote public health, safety, and welfare through the improvement of the quality and quantity of drinking water and the development and furtherance of understanding of the problems relating thereto.
The fsmb serves as the voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best…
The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.
At the internet society foundation, we focus on funding initiatives that strengthen the internet in function and reach so that it can effectively serve all people. our work advances the vision of the internet society (isoc): the internet…
Aacsb international provides quality assurance of business school programs, the latest in business education intelligence, thought leadership, and learning and development services.
Sfn's mission is to: 1. advance the understanding of the brain and the nervous system by bringing together scientists of all segments of neuroscience, by facilitating the integration of research directed at all levels of biological…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Family Focus and the most unlike its peers is Metropolitan Museum of Art. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 51 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 8% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
50 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 50 of the 68 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds We Heart Seattle ↗
- Who funds RECOVERY CAFE ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON KIDS IN TRANSITION ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE SCHINDLER HOUSE ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL DROP IN CENTER ↗
- Who funds NORTHWEST HARVEST EMM ↗
- Who funds Seattle Children's Foundation ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF KEXP ↗
- Who funds SMILE TRAIN INC ↗
- Who funds MOREHOUSE COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds BALLET THEATRE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ARM IN ARM INC ↗
- Who funds FORTERRA NW ↗
- Who funds SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds WOMANSPACE INC ↗
- Who funds CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC ↗
- Who funds PEDRO MARTINEZ FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART ↗
- Who funds WHIDBEY WATERSHED STEWARDS ↗
- Who funds ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF EVERETT ↗
- Who funds WHIDBEY ISLAND NOURISHES ↗
- Who funds ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF SEATTLE ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF ARTS INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR ART RESEARCH INC ↗
- Who funds J STREET ↗
- Who funds MARINE CORPS SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Seattle Foundation · Richard and Mary L Gray Foundation · The Norcliffe Foundation · Puget Sound Energy Foundation · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · The Chicago Community Trust · Moccasin Lake Foundation · Lucky Seven Foundation · Baird Foundation Inc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · United Way Worldwide
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Alsdorf Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Womanspace Inc — 47% of income from government
- Arm in Arm Inc — 4% of income from government
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Alsdorf Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Alsdorf Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.