Skip to content

· Private foundation

Gerald J Kaufman Jr 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.

$92k
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$25k
Largest
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 2025.

Health$316kCrime & Legal$262kHousing & Shelter$160kPublic Benefit$116kSocial Science$45kEnvironment$27kHuman Services$6kArts & Culture$5k
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k6 grants · $32k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $60k
$8,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UH JERRY KAUFMAN GLIOBLASTOMA FUND$25,000
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE$15,000
CENTER FOR RIGHTS OF ABUSE CHILDREN$10,000
STEP DENVER$10,000
COLORADO OPEN LANDS$8,000
THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT$6,000
FAMILIES FLOURISH$5,000
CCF DR PEEREBOOM RES FND$5,000
IDEASTREAM PUBLIC MEDIA$5,000
CATO INSTITUTE$3,000
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 (FY24–25, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, 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%FAMILIES FLOURISH: $5k → 15%FAMILIES FLOURISH: $1k → 15%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.

Which US states its grants reach

MT
IL
OH
CA
CO
VA
AZ
NC
DC
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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$902k · 16 repeat orgs$35k to everyone else

16 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
3

Total granted

$902k
$30k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+70%
+358%

Still filing today

69%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
Civil RightsPublic BenefitEnvironmentEducationHealthHuman 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

  • SD
    Step Denver
    9× · 2017–2025 · $160k · revenue +171%
  • IF
    INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $135k · revenue +57%
  • CI
    CATO INSTITUTE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $82k · revenue +70%

Funded once

  • CF
    Center for Rights of Abused Children
    one grant, 2022 · $20k
  • GF
    GLIOBLASTOMA FOUNDATION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue +358%
  • PA
    PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH CENTERgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue +209%
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
Open Markets Institute

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.

Education
2
Peter G Peterson Institute for International Economics

The peterson institute for international economics (piie) is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening prosperity and human welfare in the global economy through expert analysis and practical…

Social Science
3
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

The american enterprise institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening free enterprise. aei pursues these ideals through independent thinking and the…

Social Science
4
Institute for Public Accuracy

To teach and disseminate educational materials to the public.

Arts & Culture
5
The International Institute for Strategic Studies - Us

To provide accurate, objective information and analysis on international strategic issues for legislators, diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business leaders, economists, the military, defense commentators, journalists,…

International
6
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Competitive enterprise institute (cei) is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. we believe that consumers are best helped not by government regulation but by being…

—
7
Frontiers of Freedom Institute

To educate the public on constitutional issues and public policy matters. We are dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, peace through strength, limited government, free enterprise, and the values embodied in the Declaration of…

Public Benefit
8
Central Indiana Corporate Partnership Inc

Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…

Community Improvement
9
Foreign Policy Research Institute

The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…

International
10
Institute for Strategic Dialogue-Us

Isd-us is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to defending democracy and individual rights against threats to public safety and national security. isd-us is at the forefront of analyzing and innovating solutions…

Education
11
R Street Institute

The r street institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public-policy research organization ("think tank"). our mission is to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government. (continued on…

Education
12
The Institute for Law and Strategy

This institute, unlike many institutions concerned with law and public affairs, will not devote itself to advocacy or lobbying, to litigation, or to holding large-scale public events. rather, it will focus on collaboration with established…

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Center for the Rights of Abused Children; the most unlike its peers is Step Denver. 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

14 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. 14 of the 20 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
12/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Step Denver: $160,000 · OtherStep DenverUH - JERRY KAUFMAN GLIOBLASTOMA RESEARCH FUND: $150,000 · OtherUH - JERRY KAUFMAN GLIOBLASTOMA RESEARCH FUNDUH JERRY KAUFMAN GLIOBLASTOMA FUND: $75,000 · OtherUH JERRY KAUFMAN GLIOBLASTOMA FUNDCCF - Dr Peereboom Research Fund: $60,000 · OtherCCF - Dr Peereboom Research FundCENTER FOR RIGHTS OF ABUSE CHILDREN: $50,000 · OtherCENTER FOR RIGHTS OF ABUSE CHILDRENTHE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE: $45,000 · OtherTHE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTECenter for Rights of Abused Children: $20,000 · OtherCCF DR PEEREBOOM RES FND: $20,000 · Other+1 more: $6,000 · OtherINSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE: $135,000 · Civil RightsINSTITUTE FOR JUSTICECENTER FOR THE RIGHTS OF ABUSED CHILDREN: $57,000 · Civil RightsCENTER FOR THE RIGHTS OF …PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT: $22,000 · Civil RightsPROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECTCATO INSTITUTE: $82,000 · Public BenefitCATO INSTI…PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH CENTER: $5,000 · Public BenefitPROPERTY A…+1 more: $2,000 · Public BenefitCOLORADO OPEN LANDS: $22,010 · EnvironmentTHE REASON FOUNDATION: $10,000 · EducationFAMILIES FLOURISH INC: $6,000 · Human ServicesGLIOBLASTOMA FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · HealthIDEASTREAM: $5,000 · Youth Development
Other$586,000Civil Rights$214,000Public Benefit$89,000Environment$22,010Education$10,000Human Services$6,000Health$5,000Youth Development$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetStep Denver: $160,000 over 9y, 1.3% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE: $135,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetCATO INSTITUTE: $82,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetCENTER FOR THE RIGHTS OF ABUSED CHILDREN: $57,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetTHE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE: $45,000 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetCOLORADO OPEN LANDS: $22,010 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetPROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT: $22,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetTHE REASON FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican Brain Tumor Association: $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFAMILIES FLOURISH INC: $6,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetIDEASTREAM: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetINDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE: $2,000 over 2y, 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.

  • Who funds Step Denver ↗
  • Who funds INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE ↗
  • Who funds CATO INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR THE RIGHTS OF ABUSED CHILDREN ↗
  • Who funds THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds COLORADO OPEN LANDS ↗
  • Who funds PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds THE REASON FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds American Brain Tumor Association ↗
  • Who funds FAMILIES FLOURISH INC ↗
  • Who funds GLIOBLASTOMA FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds IDEASTREAM ↗
  • Who funds PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH CENTER ↗
  • Who funds INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE ↗

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.

Adolph Coors FoundationCO13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Adolph Coors Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Gerald J Kaufman Jr Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Gerald J Kaufman Jr Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–5%
    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 20 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 Gerald J Kaufman Jr’s filings →

    More from the funding graph