Skip to content
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Foundation Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Foundation Inc

Creutzfeldt-jakob disease (cjd) is a rare, rapidly progressive neurodegenerative disease, one of several prion diseases caused by prion proteins that misfold in the brain.

$703k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Health$922kScience & Tech$550kEducation$330k
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $200,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $702,920 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $502,920 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$100,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$9.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES$100,000
CASE WESTERN RESERVE$100,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 79% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BROAD INSTITUTE OF MIT & HARVARD: $100k → 8%BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $100k → 16%CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY: $100k → 12%NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH: $47k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: $100k → 16%VAN ANDEL RESEARC INSTITUTE: $50k → 11%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 11%CASE WESTERN RESERVE: $150k → 17%NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND: $50k → 8%BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER: $50k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCES: $100k → 16%CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: $130k → 17%NIAID-NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY: $45k → 8%CASE WESTERN RESERVE: $100k → 17%NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: $100k → 8%CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: $100k → 17%ROCKY MOUNTAIN LABORATORIES NIHNAI: $30k → 8%CASE WESTERN RESERVE: $100k → 17%CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: $50k → 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

MT
MI
NY
MA
OH
CO
NE
MO
MD
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $503k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 2 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$300k · 60% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: CJD RESEARCH

North America (Canada and Mexico)$203k · 40% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: CJD RESEARCH

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

64%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.2M · 5 repeat orgs$645k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +50% since the first grant, against +31% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
9

Total granted

$1.2M
$545k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+50%
+31%

Still filing today

40%
56%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $100k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationHealthOther
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

  • CW
    CASE WESTERN RESERVE
    3× · 2022–2024 · $350k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON
    4× · 2017–2022 · $300k
  • CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
    3× · 2017–2021 · $280k · revenue +50%

Funded once

  • CU
    Creighton University
    one grant, 2023 · $100k · revenue +18%
  • TB
    The Broad Institute Incgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $100k · revenue +44%
  • BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $50k · 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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 15 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
7/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CASE WESTERN RESERVE: $350,000 · OtherCASE WESTERN RESERVEUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON: $300,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTONTRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $150,000 · OtherTRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITYNATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE: $100,000 · OtherNATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTENIHNIA: $77,538 · OtherNIHNIANATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND: $50,000 · OtherCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY: $50,000 · OtherMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED: $49,994 · OtherNIAID-NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY: $44,860 · OtherCASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: $280,000 · EducationCASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVER…Creighton University: $100,000 · EducationCreighton UniversityWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $50,000 · EducationWASHINGTON UNIVERSITYThe Broad Institute Inc: $99,905 · HealthThe Broad In…BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION: $50,000 · HealthBOSTON MEDIC…VAN ANDEL RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $50,000 · HealthVAN ANDEL RE…
Other$1,172,392Education$430,000Health$199,905

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: $280,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $150,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCreighton University: $100,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetThe Broad Institute Inc: $99,905 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVAN ANDEL RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $50,000 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.

  • Who funds CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds Creighton University ↗
  • Who funds The Broad Institute Inc ↗
  • Who funds BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds VAN ANDEL RESEARCH INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 19%
  • Boston Medical Center Corporation: 23% of income from government
  • The Broad Institute Inc: 19% of income from government
  • Trustees of Boston University: 12% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Foundation Inc 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.

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 15 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 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 Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease’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