· Private foundation
Bruce E and Lynn D Holbein Charitable Foundation
Its FY2023 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 FY2019–2023.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ST THOMAS MOORE CATHOLIC COMMUNITY | $2,500 |
| INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE | $1,500 |
| COMMUNITY CHURCH OF CHAPEL HILL | $1,469 |
| NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE | $1,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,000 |
| BREAD FOR THE WORLD INST | $1,000 |
| THE CRITTENTON FOUNDATION | $500 |
| BISHOP'S ANNUAL FUND | $500 |
| SPIRIT IN ACTION | $500 |
| OXFAM | $400 |
| CARE | $400 |
| UNITED FOR A FAIR ECONOMY | $300 |
| FARMWORKERS ASSN OF FLORIDA | $300 |
| BAT CONSERVATION FOUNDATION | $250 |
| WORLDWIDE FISTULA FOUNDATION | $250 |
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 (FY19–23, $750) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 60% 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.
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 +35% since the first grant, against +22% for the ones you funded once.
41 repeat relationships — 18 still active in FY2023, 23 since wound down; 13 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (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 FY2023, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k 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
- BFBread for the World Institute5× · 2019–2023 · $5k · revenue +27%
- IRInternational Rescue Committee INC3× · 2021–2023 · $4k · revenue +38%
- UFUnited for A Fair Economy Inc4× · 2020–2023 · $1k · revenue +35%
Funded once
- FUFIRST UNITARIAN SOCIETY IN NEWTON Fone grant, 2021 · $2k
- UPUNITED PARISH OF AUBURNDALEone grant, 2019 · $1k
- CFCAMPAIGN FOR MIGRANT WORKERS JUSTICone grant, 2021 · $700
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.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
Animal outlook is a national animal protection organization working to end the abuse of farmed animals using a variety of strategies, including investigations, legal advocacy, corporate and food system reform, and vegan outreach.
Aclu foundation of ma was established to defend freedoms guaranteed in the constitution and bill of rights through public education and litigation.
Grist is an independent, non profit media organization dedicated to reporting on climate change.
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
Bank Climate Advocates (BCA) combats climate change and its adverse effects primarily by using legal advocacy and action to align public financial institutions' investment policies and practices with the 1.5 degrees C warming limitation…
New Roots Institute is a nonprofit empowering the next generation with knowledge and training to end factory farming.
Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.
The mission of the Fair Labor Association (FLA) is to protect workers' rights and improve working conditions worldwide for more than five million workers in the factories and farms of our affiliates. (see schedule o)
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mercy for Animals Inc and the most unlike its peers is Yesahcan Sanctuary Inc. 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 36 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
40 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. 40 of the 98 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 Bread for the World Institute ↗
- Who funds Spirit In Action Inc ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds United for A Fair Economy Inc ↗
- Who funds COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC ↗
- Who funds Farmworker Association of Florida Inc ↗
- Who funds Verified Voting Foundation ↗
- Who funds PARTAKERS INC ↗
- Who funds OXFAM-AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds FISH WELFARE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds REFUGEE IMMIGRATION MINISTRY INC ↗
- Who funds WORLDWIDE FISTULA FUND ↗
- Who funds REFUGEE & IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR EDUCATION & LEGAL SERVICES ↗
- Who funds GREATER BOSTON FOOD BANK INC ↗
- Who funds PAN-MASSACHUSETTS CHALLENGE INC ↗
- Who funds YESAHCAN SANCTUARY 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: Triangle Community Foundation Inc · The Hummel Family Fund Inc · Impactassetsinc · Rsf Social Finance Inc · Eastern Bank Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Boston Foundation Inc · Renaissance Charitable Foundation Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
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 Bruce E and Lynn D Holbein Charitable 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Partakers Inc — 59% of income from government
- Greater Boston Food Bank Inc — 22% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- Greater Boston Legal Services Inc — 3% of income from government
- Massachusetts Audubon Society Inc — 1% of income from government
- Lawyers for Civil Rights Inc — 1% of income from government
- Greensboro Free Library — 1% of income from government
- Pan-Massachusetts Challenge Inc — 0% of income from government
- Oxfam-America Inc — 0% 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.