Skip to content
Chauncey F Lufkin III Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Chauncey F Lufkin III Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$154k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$54k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Environment$152kYouth Development$89kRecreation & Sports$69kPhilanthropy$61kCivil Rights$50kHuman Services$38kHealth$33kEducation$25kOther$0
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $90k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $54k
$15,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$6.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATIONAL TENNIS FOUNDATION$53,500
ROBIN HOOD$25,000
Individual grant recipient$25,000
JOE TORRE SAFE AT HOME$15,000
ORIGINAL FLORIDA POKERS BASEBALL$15,000
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY$10,000
REX FOUNDATION$5,000
ST JUDE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL$5,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY17–17, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%JOE TORRE SAFE AT HOME FOUNDATION: $5k → 17%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

NY
MA
NJ
CA
TN
HI
GA
FL
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

31%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$193k · 7 repeat orgs$419k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
18

Total granted

$193k
$341k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+41%
+42%

Still filing today

57%
56%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 49% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $79k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’21’22’23’24
PhilanthropyYouth DevelopmentEducationInternationalRecreation & SportsHealthOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • AF
    APEX FOR YOUTH INC
    2× · 2017–2021 · $41k · revenue +265%
  • RH
    ROBIN HOOD FOUNDATION
    2× · 2022–2024 · $31k · revenue +40%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PBC
    2× · 2022–2024 · $18k · revenue +41%

Funded once

  • DN
    DEFEND NATURE INTERACTVEINC
    one grant, 2021 · $150k
  • RH
    ROBIN HOOD LEAGUE
    one grant, 2017 · $50k
  • TW
    TIGER WOODS FOUNDATION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $25k · revenue +70%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

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.

Education
2
MRIGlobal

To improve the lives of people through innovative scientific and engineering research.

Science & Tech
3
The Leadership Foundation

The leadership foundation, inc. (the foundation), established in 1990, is the mechanism by which iwf members advance the next generation of women leaders. the foundation accelerates the careers of top-performing women by offering…

—
4
United States Naval Institute

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.

—
5
International Biomedical Research Alliance

Our mission is to invest in and accelerate the development of the most promising future leaders in biomedical research with global impact.

Health
6
New York Genome Center Inc

Operate a state-of-the-art, world-class genomic research center that creates and uses advanced genomics to understand the genetic basis of disease. for more information, see schedule o.

Health
7
Ucla Foundation

The ucla foundation is the giving, receiving, and investing arm of the ucla campus. the foundation enables private donors to help build, sustain and advance one of the world's finest academic and research institutions. private philanthropy…

Education
8
Metropolitan Jewish Health System Inc

Mjhs health system is a charitable not-for-profit established to support the activities of affiliated organizations. mjhs is built on the core values of compassion, dignity and respect, first established by the four brooklyn ladies in…

Health
9
American Association for the Advancement of Science

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,…

Science & Tech
10
Robert a Toigo Foundation

Our mission is to shape the future of finance by developing leaders whose innovation, investment excellence, and human-centered leadership advance the industry and its adjacent sectors.

Education
11
The Trustees of Princeton University

Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…

Education
12
National Opinion Research Center

See schedule onorc at the university of chicago conducts research and data science on critical societal issues to guide decision-making and the development of programs and public policy. our experts identify relationships and trends, and…

Social Science
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tiger Woods Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Joe Torre Safe At Home Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

19 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 19 of the 30 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/19
Grantees still filing
16/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DEFEND NATURE INTERACTVEINC: $150,000 · OtherDEFEND NATURE INTERACTVEINCIndividual grant recipient: $60,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientROBIN HOOD LEAGUE: $50,000 · OtherROBIN HOOD LEAGUESINGLES AND DOUBLES FOUNDATION: $25,000 · OtherSINGLES AND DOUBLES FOUNDATIONDREAM CHASERS ACADEMY INC: $20,000 · OtherJOE TORRE SAFE AT HOME: $20,000 · OtherORIGINAL FLORIDA POKERS BASEBALL: $15,000 · OtherTHE MILKEN INSTITUTE: $15,000 · Other+11 more: $43,734 · Other+11 moreROBIN HOOD FOUNDATION: $31,000 · PhilanthropyROBIN HOOD…Jupiter Medical Center Foundation Inc: $10,000 · PhilanthropyJupiter Me…PROSTATE CANCER FOUNDATION: $5,000 · PhilanthropyPROSTATE C…THE GIVING BACK FUND: $5,000 · PhilanthropyTHE GIVING…AHRC NEW YORK CITY FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · PhilanthropyAHRC NEW Y…National Tennis Foundation Inc: $53,500 · Recreation & SportsNational …APEX FOR YOUTH INC: $41,000 · Community ImprovementBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PBC: $17,620 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentTIGER WOODS FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 · EducationINNOVATION AFRICA: $15,000 · International
Other$398,734Philanthropy$56,000Recreation & Sports$53,500Community Improvement$41,000Youth Development$27,620Education$25,000International$15,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNational Tennis Foundation Inc: $53,500 over 1y, 17% of budgetAPEX FOR YOUTH INC: $41,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetROBIN HOOD FOUNDATION: $31,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTIGER WOODS FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PBC: $17,620 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetINNOVATION AFRICA: $15,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE MILKEN INSTITUTE: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJupiter Medical Center Foundation Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPROSTATE CANCER FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMUSEUM OF LATIN AMERICAN ART: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE GIVING BACK FUND: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE JOE TORRE SAFE AT HOME FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetREX FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetAHRC NEW YORK CITY FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE BREAST CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJFT - JEWISH FUTURES FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Vanguard Charitable E…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Vanguard Charitable Endowment ProgramPA9.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Chauncey F Lufkin III Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Chauncey F Lufkin III Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 30 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Chauncey F Lufkin III’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home