Skip to content
Faculty Practice Foundation Inc & Affiliates at a glance

· Public charity

Faculty Practice Foundation Inc & Affiliates

The faculty practice plans ("the plans") were established as not-for-profit corporations operating exclusively for the benefit of boston medical center and boston university chobanian & avedisian school of medicine.

$18k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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.

Employment$1.0MHealth$452kEducation$23kPhilanthropy$17k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $14,500, the rows itemized in this filing. The $18,079 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $3,579 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.
$14,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$92M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH$14,500
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS: $5k → 8%INTERNATIONAL MUSCULOSKELETAL SOCIETY: $6k → 10%TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $23k → 16%SHIPPY FOUNDATION: $17k → 17%AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION: $15k → 14%ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH: $15k → 14%BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER: $102k → 16%AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY: $10k → 17%AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION: $15k → 14%ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH: $13k → 14%Boston Medical Center: $100k → 16%ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH: $11k → 14%BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER: $92k → 16%ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH: $11k → 14%BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER: $16k → 16%ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH: $10k → 14%BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER: $10k → 16%ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH: $10k → 14%MA ASSOCIATION OF MENTAL HEALTH: $10k → 16%ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH: $10k → 14%TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $1.0M → 16%Orthopaedic Research: $8k → 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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.5M · 5 repeat orgs$48k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +40% since the first grant, against -13% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
5

Total granted

$1.5M
$48k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+40%
-13%

Still filing today

80%
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
HealthEducationPhilanthropyOther
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

  • TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY
    2× · 2018–2024 · $1.0M · revenue +40%
  • BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION
    5× · 2017–2021 · $320k · revenue +115%
  • AH
    American Heart Association Inc
    2× · 2017–2019 · $30k · revenue +33%

Funded once

  • SF
    SHIPPY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $17k · revenue -13%
  • AT
    AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY INC
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +21%
  • MA
    MASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue +72%
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
Mass General Brigham Incorporated & Affiliates Group Return

Mass general brigham incorporated is developing an integrated health care delivery system throughout the region that offers patients a continuum of coordinated, high-quality care.

Health
2
Children's Hospital Corporation

Provider of pediatric healthcare, education, research & community service

Health
3
Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute

Sanford burnham prebys medical discovery institute's mission is to advance the biomedical sciences by cultivating the next generation of scientific leaders, providing meaningful opportunities for researchers of all backgrounds to learn,…

Health
4
New York Society for the Relief of the Ruptured and Crippled Maintaining the

The mission of hospital for special surgery is to provide the highest quality patient care, improve mobility, and enhance the quality of life for all and to advance the science of orthopedic surgery, rheumatology, and their related…

Health
5
Massachusetts E-Health Collaborative
—
6
American College of Physicians Inc

The mission of the american college of physicians (acp), www. acponline.org, is to enhance the quality and effectiveness of health care by fostering excellence and professionalism in the practice of medicine. acp was founded in 1915 to…

Health
7
Association of Migraine Disorders
Health
8
Aim At Melanoma

Aim at melanoma (aim) is globally engaged and locally invested in advancing the battle against melanoma through innovative research, legislative reform, education, and patient and caregiver support. founded in 2004, aim at melanoma is the…

Health
9
International Myeloma Foundation

Dedicated to improving the quality of life of myeloma patients while working toward prevention and a cure.

Unclassified
10
Massachusetts Medical Society

To advance medical knowledge, to develop and maintain the highest professional and ethical standards of medical practice and health care, and to promote medical institutions formed on liberal principles for the health, benefit, and welfare…

—
11
Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary

THE MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY ("THE INFIRMARY") IS A NOT-FOR-PROFIT TEACHING HOSPITAL CONDUCTING PATIENT CARE AND RESEARCH. THE INFIRMARY IS A TEACHING HOSPITAL OF HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL AND AN INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH.…

Health
12
Medstar Health Research Institute Inc

See schedule omedstar health research institute is dedicated to supporting the academic platform of medstar health by conducting high quality translational and health sciences research throughout the medstar system.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Massachusetts Association for Mental Health Inc; the most unlike its peers is Shippy 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

9 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. 9 of the 10 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)
9/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $1,022,500 · OtherTRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY+2 more: $30,750 · OtherBOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION: $319,900 · HealthBOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATI…Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation: $65,000 · HealthOrthopaedic Research and Educat…American Heart Association Inc: $30,000 · HealthAmerican Heart Association Inc+1 more: $5,250 · HealthSHIPPY FOUNDATION: $16,809 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY INC: $10,000 · EducationInternational Musculoskeletal Society (IMS) Inc: $6,000 · Education
Other$1,053,250Health$420,150Philanthropy$16,809Education$16,000

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 budgetTRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $1,022,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION: $319,900 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetOrthopaedic Research and Education Foundation: $65,000 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc: $30,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSHIPPY FOUNDATION: $16,809 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetAMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetInternational Musculoskeletal Society (IMS) Inc: $6,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetNATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS OF MASSACHUSETTS INC: $5,250 over 1y, 0.3% 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…Fidelity Investments …
Vanguard Charitable Endowment ProgramPA8.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Faculty Practice Foundation Inc & Affiliates funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Faculty Practice Foundation Inc & Affiliates. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 23%
  • Boston Medical Center Corporation: 23% of income from government
  • Trustees of Boston University: 12% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get 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 · 0–40%
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.

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 10 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Faculty Practice Foundation Inc & Affiliates’ 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