· Private foundation
Glenn Greenberg and Linda Vester Foundation Inc
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.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 45% of GLENN GREENBERG AND LINDA VESTER FOUNDATION INC’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k3 grants · $50k
- $50k–250k14 grants · $1.9M
- $250k+21 grants · $27M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| YALE UNIVERSITY TEMPLE WING | $10,000,000 |
| FACING HISTORY AND OURSELVES | $2,500,000 |
| NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN FUND INC | $2,333,333 |
| WEILL CORNELL - NEUROIMMUNOLOGY | $2,000,000 |
| WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE | $1,250,000 |
| LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT | $1,225,000 |
| INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION | $1,045,000 |
| THE POSSE FOUNDATION | $1,025,000 |
| WARRIOR SCHOLAR PROJECT | $700,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $600,000 |
| VISIBLE HANDS | $500,000 |
| THE JANE STERN DORADO COMMUNITY LIBRARY INC | $500,000 |
| ERASE PTSD NOW | $500,000 |
| LAWYERS FOR CHILDREN INC | $500,000 |
| SPARK WAVE LLC | $380,000 |
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 (FY19–25, $980k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 58% 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.
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 +9% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
46 repeat relationships — 31 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.9M 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
- TDTASIS DORADO EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC3× · 2022–2024 · $15M · revenue +133% · 35% of their budget
- HSHACKLEY SCHOOL3× · 2019–2021 · $9.7M · revenue +7%
- FHFACING HISTORY & OURSELVES INC4× · 2022–2025 · $7.5M · revenue +0%
Funded once
- TETASIS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONone grant, 2024 · $14M
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2024 · $4.0M
Northwestern Universityone grant, 2024 · $1.6M · revenue 0%
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.
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
New york school of interior design provides the most innovative, immersive, and transformative interior design education in the world, demonstrating the impact of professionally designed interiors on the health, happiness, and well-being…
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
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,…
The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…
Provide post-secondary education of excellence.
Open new york education, inc. supports public education, awareness, and engagement around housing issues to help build a movement for a more abundant and inclusive new york.
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…
(see schedule o)
The mission of the silicon schools fund is to improve education through supporting the launch of excellent new schools, improving academic instruction in existing schools, and by funding some of the boldest innovations in education…
Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…
To educate students to be ethical and socially responsible leaders in a global community.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Seeing Eye Inc and the most unlike its peers is Dorado Cares Inc. 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 26 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) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
46 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. 46 of the 81 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
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 TASIS DORADO EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds HACKLEY SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds FACING HISTORY & OURSELVES INC ↗
- Who funds THE POSSE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds WARRIOR-SCHOLAR PROJECT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN FUND INC ↗
- Who funds LAWYERS FOR CHILDREN INC ↗
- Who funds CODEORG ↗
- Who funds PEER HEALTH EXCHANGE INC ↗
- Who funds Northwestern University ↗
- Who funds THE JANE STERN DORADO COMMUNITY LIBRARY INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN TRANSPARENCY ↗
- Who funds CARLOS BELTRAN BASEBALL ACADEMY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ERASE PTSD NOW INC ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTO NUEVA ESCUELA INC ↗
- Who funds KINESIS INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR A NEW ECONOMY INC ↗
- Who funds Active Minds Inc ↗
- Who funds OPEN MEDICINE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds JACKIE ROBINSON FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE MULTIPLE MYELOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds VISIBLE HANDS ↗
- Who funds MORY'S PRESERVATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ↗
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: Jewish Communal Fund · The Mj & Caral G Lebworth Foundation · 2022 Act Foundation Inc · The Chicago Community Trust · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Liberty Communications Foundation Inc · Viking Global Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund · The New York Community Trust · Ge Aerospace Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation
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 Glenn Greenberg and Linda Vester Foundation Inc 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Freedom Reads Inc — 12% of income from government
- Squash Haven Inc — 4% of income from government
- The Ridgefield Playhouse for Movies and the Performing Arts Inc — 1% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Glenn Greenberg and Linda Vester Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Glenn Greenberg and Linda Vester Foundation Inc 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.