Skip to content
David and Wynne Baruch Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

David and Wynne Baruch Family Foundation

Its FY2022 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$402k
Granted FY2022
7
Grants FY2022
4
States reached
$391k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2022.

Philanthropy$421kReligion$33kEducation$31kYouth Development$1kHealth$670Arts & Culture$500Recreation & Sports$500Food & Nutrition$250Other$0
02FY2022 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • Under $10k6 grants · $11k
  • $250k+1 grant · $391k
$1,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Jewish United Fund$391,405
Indiana University$5,000
Temple Chai$3,708
Chicago Yatch Club Foundation$1,000
The Foundation Fighting Blindness$570
Freedom Water Foundation$500
Chicago Botanic Garden$100
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 (FY20–20, $200) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Misericordia Home: $200 → 14%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.
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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$469k · 3 repeat orgs$23k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +57% since the first grant, against +17% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2022, 0 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
7

Total granted

$469k
$21k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+57%
+17%

Still filing today

33%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22
EducationHealthRecreation & SportsPhilanthropyFood & NutritionHuman ServicesOther
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

  • JU
    JEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO
    4× · 2019–2022 · $421k · revenue +57%
  • TC
    TEMPLE CHAI
    4× · 2019–2022 · $33k
  • IU
    Indiana University School of Medicine
    3× · 2020–2022 · $15k

Funded once

  • JV
    JAMES VOLPE FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2019 · $11k · revenue -99% · 80% of their budget
  • Indiana University Foundationgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue +93%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $4k
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
Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago

Federation amplifies our collective strength to make the world a better place for everyone. we assist people in need, impact chicagoans of all faiths; support israel and the jewish people worldwide; respond swiftly to crises; cultivate…

Philanthropy
2
University of Chicago

The mission of the university of chicago has been to sustain at the highest level of excellence, the communication of knowledge, the creation of knowledge and the fostering of a dynamic community of scholars and students.

Education
3
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation

To cure cf and provide all people with cf the opportunity to lead long, fulfilling lives by funding research and drug development, partnering with the cf community, and advancing high-quality, specialized care.

Health
4
The Chicago Innovation Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Chicago's Environmental Fund
—
6
Northern Illinois University Foundation

The niu foundation's mission is to energize and connect the private sector with the niu community to secure and steward resources that support the future and growth of niu.

Education
7
Marc Lustgarten Pancreatic Cancer Foundation

The lustgarten foundation is the largest private funder of pancreatic cancer research in the world. see schedule o.the lustgarten foundation is boldly leading the way through hope and innovation, turning fear into action through education…

Human Services
8
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc

The mission of dfci is to provide expert, compassionate, and equitable care to children, adults, and their families, while advancing the understanding, diagnosis, treatment, cure, and prevention of cancer and related diseases. we train new…

Health
9
Woods Fund of Chicago
—
10
The James Beard Foundation Inc

The james beard foundation believes in a vibrant, equitable, and sustainable independent restaurant industry that stands as a cornerstone of american culture, community, and economy - and drives towards a better food system. the james…

—
11
University of Chicago Medical Center

Our mission at the university of chicago medicine is to provide superior health care through rigorous research, innovative education, and comprehensive care and healing. in partnership with our colleagues, we pursue life-changing…

Health
12
Loyola University of Chicago

We are chicago's jesuit, catholic university - a diverse community seeking god in all things and working to expand knowledge in the service of humanity through learning, justice, and faith.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chicago Horticultural Society; the most unlike its peers is The Foundation Fighting Blindness Inc. 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

10 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. 10 of the 14 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO: $420,823 · PhilanthropyJEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGOTEMPLE CHAI: $32,934 · OtherTEMPLE CHAIIndiana University School of Medicine: $15,000 · OtherIndiana Univ…Individual grant recipient: $4,000 · OtherIndividual g…+1 more: $500 · OtherJAMES VOLPE FOUNDATION INC: $11,069 · EducationIndiana University Foundation: $5,000 · EducationCHICAGO YACHT CLUB FOUNDATION: $1,000 · Recreation & SportsFreedom Waters Foundation Inc: $500 · Recreation & SportsTHE FOUNDATION FIGHTING BLINDNESS INC: $570 · HealthPANCREATIC CANCER ACTION NETWORK INC: $100 · HealthGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $250 · Food & NutritionMISERICORDIA HOME: $200 · Human ServicesCHICAGO HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY: $100 · Environment
Philanthropy$420,823Other$52,434Education$16,069Recreation & Sports$1,500Health$670Food & Nutrition$250Human Services$200Environment$100

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetJEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO: $420,823 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetJAMES VOLPE FOUNDATION INC: $11,069 over 1y, 80% of budgetIndiana University Foundation: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHICAGO YACHT CLUB FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE FOUNDATION FIGHTING BLINDNESS INC: $570 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFreedom Waters Foundation Inc: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMISERICORDIA HOME: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPANCREATIC CANCER ACTION NETWORK INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHICAGO HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY: $100 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA3.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 David and Wynne Baruch Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from David and Wynne Baruch Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 14 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on David and Wynne Baruch Family’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