Skip to content
Fleischaker Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Fleischaker Family Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$160k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$120k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2024.

Health$748kCrime & Legal$128kEducation$26kArts & Culture$15kPhilanthropy$14kHuman Services$14kInternational$10kPublic Safety & Disaster$10kOther$0
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $40k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $120k
$10,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$2.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER$120,000
MEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE$10,000
EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND$10,000
PLANNED PARENTHOOD$10,000
BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE$10,000
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 (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%THE ALLIGNMENT CHAPTER: $3k → 11%MEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE: $10k → 22%CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $120k → 14%PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION: $11k → 17%CREATIVITY FOR PEACE: $10k → 12%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ROCKY MOUNTAINS: $15k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION: $15k → 13%UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MUSEUM: $10k → 14%PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $10k → 5%THE ALLIGNMENT CENTER: $2k → 11%MEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE: $13k → 22%CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $120k → 14%THE NEW MEXICO FOUNDATION: $14k → 12%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS: $10k → 14%UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MUSEUM: $5k → 14%MEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE: $10k → 22%CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $120k → 14%NATIONAL WOMEN'S HEALTH NETWORK PLAN C: $10k → 14%CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $100k → 14%BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE: $20k → 14%CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $100k → 14%BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE: $10k → 14%CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $100k → 14%BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE: $10k → 14%COMMUNITY ORGANIZED RELIEF EFFORT: $10k → 14%BRADY UNITED: $10k → 14%BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE: $10k → 14%BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE: $7k → 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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 21% of Fleischaker Family Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Fleischaker Family Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$887k · 7 repeat orgs$78k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
9

Total granted

$887k
$68k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+37%
+43%

Still filing today

100%
56%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthCrime & LegalEducationArts & CulturePublic Safety & DisasterHuman 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

  • CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER
    6× · 2019–2024 · $660k · revenue +50%
  • EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $72k · revenue +37%
  • BC
    BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE
    5× · 2019–2024 · $57k · revenue +129%

Funded once

  • FR
    FAITH ROOTS REPRODUCTIVE ACTION
    one grant, 2023 · $11k · revenue -62%
  • PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $11k · revenue +43%
  • CC
    CORE COMMUNITY ORGANIZED RELIEF EFFORT
    one grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue -47%
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
Guttmacher Institute Inc

The institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the united states and globally.

—
2
University Associates in Obstetrics and Gynecology University Faculty Pract ice Corporation

Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.

Health
3
The Population Council Inc

We generate ideas, produce evidence, and design solutions to improve the lives of underserved populations around the world. we take a multidisciplinary, intergenerational, life-cycle approach that contributes to (see schedule o)four global…

International
4
Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States Inc

The fsmb serves as the voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best…

Health
5
Women's Law Project

Women's law project creates a more just and equitable society by advancing the rights and status of all women throughout their lives. to this end, we engage in high-impact litigation, advocacy, and education. the core values of women's law…

Civil Rights
6
2020 Mom Policy Center for Maternal

The policy center is improving maternal mental health outcomes through closing gaps in care delivery, including improving detection and access to evidence-based and informed clinical and community-based care. the policy center has been…

Health
7
Power to Decide

Power to decide envisions a world where everyone - no matter who they are or where they live - has control over their bodies and can decide if, when, and under what circumstances to get pregnant and have a child. its mission is to advance…

Human Services
8
National Institute for Reproductive Health Inc

National institute for reproductive health, inc. works to protect and advance equitable access to reproductive health care by building power at the state and local level. using an approach that is rooted in partnerships with state and…

Civil Rights
9
Institute of Reproductive Grief Care

Institute of reproductive grief care, is the global leader in education, research, expertise and support after reproductive loss without religious or political affiliation.

Health
10
University of Maryland Obstetrical Andgynecological Associates Pa

Under the medical service plan of the university of maryland school of medicine, medical services are rendered by the members of the faculty on behalf of the school of medicine in connection with their duties to provide clinical…

—
11
University Family Physicians Inc

Engage actively and continuously in medical research, education and training in the practice of medicine in conjunction with the department of family medicine of the indiana university school of medicine and indiana university…

—
12
Banner -University Medical Group

Assist banner health complete its mission to make health care easier so life can be better by providing integrated & coordinated care & population health management.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood Inc; the most unlike its peers is The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

13 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. 13 of the 18 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)
13/13
Grantees still filing
10/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $660,000 · HealthCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTERMEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE: $32,500 · HealthROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD INC: $25,000 · Health+2 more: $20,736 · HealthEVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND INC: $71,500 · Crime & LegalEVERYTOWN FOR …BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE: $56,500 · Crime & LegalBRADY CENTER T…TOMORROW'S WOMEN: $10,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherOKLAHOMA CITY REGIONAL FOOD BANK: $2,500 · OtherTHE@ALLIGNMENT CHAPTER: $2,500 · OtherTHE ALLIGNMENT CENTER: $1,500 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC: $26,000 · EducationThe United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: $15,000 · Arts & CultureNEW MEXICO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $13,500 · PhilanthropyFAITH ROOTS REPRODUCTIVE ACTION: $11,000 · Human ServicesCORE COMMUNITY ORGANIZED RELIEF EFFORT: $10,000 · Public Safety & Disaster
Health$738,236Crime & Legal$128,000Other$36,500Education$26,000Arts & Culture$15,000Philanthropy$13,500Human Services$11,000Public Safety & Disaster$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $660,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetEVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND INC: $71,500 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetBRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE: $56,500 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetMEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE: $32,500 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC: $26,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD INC: $25,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetThe United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: $15,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNEW MEXICO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $13,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetFAITH ROOTS REPRODUCTIVE ACTION: $11,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $10,736 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCORE COMMUNITY ORGANIZED RELIEF EFFORT: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNational Women's Health Network: $10,000 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 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 Fleischaker Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Fleischaker Family Foundation. 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%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s 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 · 0–50%
    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 18 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 Fleischaker 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