· Private foundation
Brittenham Family Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ANGEL CHARITY FOR CHILDREN INC | $1,000 |
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 (FY22–24, $11k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 10% of Brittenham Family Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 61% of the giving stays in AZ; read by stated purpose it is 58% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +57% since the first grant, against +39% for the ones you funded once.
6 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down.
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 FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- BABALLET ARTS FOUNDATION2× · 2018–2019 · $21k · revenue +112%
University of Arizona Foundation3× · 2018–2023 · $17k · revenue +19%- ACAngel Charity for Children Inc4× · 2018–2024 · $13k · revenue +56%
Funded once
- UOUNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue +39%
- BOBASIS ORO VALLEY PRIMARYone grant, 2020 · $6k
- STST THOMAS THE APOSTLE ROMAN CATHOLIC PARISH PHOENIXone grant, 2021 · $5k
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.
Arizona opera elevates the transformative power of storytelling through music - cultivating community and strengthening a state and people as adventurous and diverse as the place they call home.
To lead, serve and collaborate to mobilize enduring philanthropy for a better arizona.
Inspire people to enjoy and protect birds through recreation, education, conservation, and restoration of the environment, upon which we all depend.
To nurture, promote and produce the finest traditional performances
The mission of the aclu foundation of arizona is to defend and preserve, through litigation and public education, individual rights and freedoms guaranteed to all by the constitution and the laws of the united states and arizona.
To assist member firms in achieving higher professional, ethical business and economic standards, enabling member firms to provide quality consulting and engineering services for their clients and the public.
The mission of the Tucson Symphony is to build and enrich community through the experience of live music of the highest quality.
Professional production of opera for the public, and education about opera and the performing arts for audiences of all ages.
To advance the knowledge and abilities of organization members in the field of architecture through seminars, networking, and member services.
Azaap is committed to improving the health of arizona children and supporting the pediatric professionals who care for them.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of Arizona Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Fraternal Order of Police Pima Lodge 20. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 13 of the 29 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 BALLET ARTS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds University of Arizona Foundation ↗
- Who funds Angel Charity for Children Inc ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TUCSON DESERT SONG FESTIVAL ↗
- Who funds The Rogue Theatre ↗
- Who funds BASIS CHARTER SCHOOLS INC ↗
- Who funds Arizona Theatre Company ↗
- Who funds Arizona Early Music Society Inc ↗
- Who funds PATRONATO SAN XAVIER ↗
- Who funds JUDICIAL WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE PIMA LODGE 20 ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES LAW ENFORCEMENT 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: Community Foundation for Southern Arizona · AWH FOUNDATION co ROBERT W GILLETT · Connie Hillman Family Foundation · Arts Foundation for Tucson and Southern Arizona · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Brittenham Family 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.
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.