Skip to content
Don Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Don Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$55k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$55k
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.

Philanthropy$330kEducation$33kHuman Services$13kArts & Culture$12kYouth Development$10kHealth$8kFood & Nutrition$5k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$55,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
JEWISH UNITED FUND$55,000
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 (FY17–20, $13k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%SHINEMSD INC: $3k → 13%JEWISH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES: $5k → 14%JEWISH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES: $5k → 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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$450k · 8 repeat orgs$10k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +13% since the first grant, against +2% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
3

Total granted

$450k
$10k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+13%
+2%

Still filing today

88%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
PhilanthropyHuman ServicesArts & CultureHealthYouth DevelopmentEducationOther
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
    9× · 2017–2025 · $325k · revenue +13%
  • RAVINIA FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION
    3× · 2017–2019 · $12k · revenue +53%
  • JC
    JEWISH COUNCIL FOR YOUTH SERVICES
    2× · 2018–2019 · $10k · revenue +11%

Funded once

  • MT
    MORAINE TOWNSHIP CHARITABLE FUND CHARITABLE FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue +163%
  • CB
    COLLEGE BOUND OPPORTUNITIES
    one grant, 2021 · $3k · revenue +2%
  • SM
    Shine MSD Inc
    one grant, 2018 · $3k · revenue -98%
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 Judaism Foundation
—
3
The Steinhardt Foundation for Jewish Life Inc
Religion
4
Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta Inc

The jewish federation of greater atlanta cares for, connects and strengthens our jewish community throughout greater atlanta, israel and the world.

Philanthropy
5
Evan Joseph Gerstein Foundation
Health
6
Abraham & Florence Mendel Foundation
—
7
Leonard and Diane Sherman Family Foundation

The foundation is organized to foster, promote, support, develop, encourage and maintain the broad charitable, educational and/or religious purpose of, the jewish federation of metropolitan chicago, and the foundation as authorized in…

Philanthropy
8
The Chasdei Shimon Foundation
Religion
9
Jack Joseph & Morton Mandel Foundation
Philanthropy
10
The Jewish Foundation of Cincinnati
Philanthropy
11
The Kohn-Joseloff Foundation
Philanthropy
12
The Milstein Family Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Council for Youth Services; the most unlike its peers is Adam Don 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

11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 11 of the 12 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO: $325,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGOADAM DON FOUNDATION: $55,000 · PhilanthropyADAM DON FOUNDATION+3 more: $14,950 · PhilanthropyUNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL: $30,000 · OtherJewish Child and Family Services: $10,000 · Human ServicesShine MSD Inc: $2,500 · Human ServicesRAVINIA FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION: $12,000 · Arts & CultureJEWISH COUNCIL FOR YOUTH SERVICES: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentNATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY: $2,950 · HealthCOLLEGE BOUND OPPORTUNITIES: $2,500 · Education
Philanthropy$394,950Other$30,000Human Services$12,500Arts & Culture$12,000Youth Development$10,000Health$2,950Education$2,500

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 budgetJEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO: $325,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetADAM DON FOUNDATION: $55,000 over 5y, 16% of budgetRAVINIA FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION: $12,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH COUNCIL FOR YOUTH SERVICES: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetJewish Child and Family Services: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMORAINE TOWNSHIP CHARITABLE FUND CHARITABLE FUND: $5,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF SOUTH PALM BEACH COUNTY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFOR AUTISTIC KIDS FOUNDATION: $4,950 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetNATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY: $2,950 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCOLLEGE BOUND OPPORTUNITIES: $2,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetShine MSD Inc: $2,500 over 1y, 0.5% 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.

Sacks Family Foundati…Jewish Federation of …AbbVie FoundationNetwork for GoodNational Philanthropi…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Sacks Family FoundationIL13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sacks Family Foundation · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · AbbVie Foundation · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Don Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Don Family 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%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 Don Family Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Don Family Foundation 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 12 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Don 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