· Private foundation
Freedom Together 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $11k
- $10k–50k54 grants · $1.2M
- $50k–250k94 grants · $12M
- $250k+445 grants · $457M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BLUE MERIDIAN PARTNERS INC | $14,000,000 |
| AMALGAMATED CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC | $12,500,000 |
| MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER | $8,000,000 |
| VOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT | $8,000,000 |
| COMMUNITY CHANGE | $7,000,000 |
| COMMUNITY CHANGE | $6,500,000 |
| NEW VENTURE FUND | $6,250,000 |
| WINDWARD FUND | $6,150,000 |
| MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY | $5,550,000 |
| ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC | $5,000,000 |
| EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE | $5,000,000 |
| FOUNDATION FOR CITY COLLEGE | $5,000,000 |
| BEND THE ARC A JEWISH PARTNERSHIP FOR JUSTICE | $5,000,000 |
| CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS | $5,000,000 |
| BRIDGESPAN GROUP INC | $5,000,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $201.8M) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 13% of Freedom Together Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 31% of the giving stays in NY; read by stated purpose it is 27% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +30% since the first grant, against +21% for the ones you funded once.
445 repeat relationships — 317 still active in FY2024, 128 since wound down; 98 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $41M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- BMBLUE MERIDIAN PARTNERS INC7× · 2018–2024 · $104M · revenue +72%
- TBTHE BRIDGESPAN GROUP INC8× · 2017–2024 · $52M · revenue +134%
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC8× · 2017–2024 · $51M · revenue +12%
Funded once
- GPGATES PHILANTHROPY PARTNERSone grant, 2020 · $5.0M · revenue -88%
GIVEDIRECTLY INCone grant, 2020 · $2.0M · revenue -32%
Alliance for Global Justice Corpone grant, 2020 · $2.0M · revenue -25% · 29% of their budget
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
American gas association's (the association) mission is to develop and advocate for informed, innovative, and durable policy that fulfills our nation's energy needs, environmental aspirations and economic potential. we are committed to…
Environment next supports individuals, nonprofits and businesses around the world on solutions to complex climate issues. we provide leadership, outreach and communication support, grants, and investments to empower leaders and their ideas…
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
See schedule onorc at the university of chicago conducts research and data science on critical societal issues to guide decision-making and the development of programs and public policy. our experts identify relationships and trends, and…
Cdp north america, inc. 's ("cdp-na") vision for the future is a thriving economy that works for people and planet in the long term. we focus investors and companies on taking urgent action to build a truly sustainable economy by measuring…
To develop and promote a carbon dividends framework - based on carbon fees whose revenues are rebated to citizens through dividends - as the most cost-effective, equitable, and politically viable climate solution.
Founded in 1889, the national association of regulatory utility commisioners (naruc) is a non-profit organization dedicated to representing the state public service commisions who regulate the utilities that provide essential services such…
The common application is a not-for-profit membership organization of over 1,100 colleges and universities across the globe committed to access, equity, and integrity in the college admission process. every year, over 1.5 million students…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Policylink and the most unlike its peers is Shift Fka Aaron & Martha Schecter Private Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 28 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.3% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
716 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 716 of the 761 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds BLUE MERIDIAN PARTNERS INC ↗
- Who funds ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds WINDWARD FUND ↗
- Who funds THE BRIDGESPAN GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds HARLEM CHILDREN'S ZONE INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER ↗
- Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ↗
- Who funds Elevate Energy ↗
- Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
- Who funds EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ↗
- Who funds The New School ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ↗
- Who funds WNET ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FUND FOR PUBLIC HEALTH IN NEW YORK INC ↗
- Who funds VOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT ↗
- Who funds THE MIAMI FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds BEND THE ARC - A JEWISH PARTNERSHIP FOR JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds GREEN & HEALTHY HOMES INITIATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY INC ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Surdna Foundation Inc · The Kresge Foundation · United States Energy Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Windward Fund · The Nathan Cummings Foundation Inc · The Ford Foundation · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · Foundation to Promote Open Society · New Venture Fund · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Rockefeller Family Fund Inc
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Freedom Together Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Green & Healthy Homes Initiative Inc — 100% of income from government
- Institute for Sustainable Communities — 100% of income from government
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- National Center for Healthy Housing Inc — 24% of income from government
- Boston Medical Center Corporation — 23% of income from government
- Enterprise Community Partners Inc — 22% of income from government
- Community Catalyst Inc — 15% of income from government
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- The Housing Partnership Network Inc — 10% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Inc — 6% of income from government
- Planned Parenthood of South Florida and the Treasure Coast Inc — 6% of income from government
- Connecticut Children's Medical Center — 5% of income from government
- New Ecology Inc — 1% of income from government
- National Consumer Law Center Inc — 1% of income from government
- The Nemours Foundation — 0% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.