Skip to content
Gondeck Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Gondeck Family 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.

$15k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0193% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Recreation & Sports$207kReligion$109kHealth$67kAnimals$29kHuman Services$23kPhilanthropy$21kInternational$10kEducation$8kOther$0
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $5k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$151k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MISERICORDIA FOUNDATION$10,000
PROJECT 613$5,000
Individual grant recipient$40
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 (FY22–25, $30k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%MISERICORDIA FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%MISERICORDIA FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%MISERICORDIA FOUNDATION: $10k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
WI
NY
IN
CA
VA
GA
TX
FL
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.

60%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$341k · 9 repeat orgs$227k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +85% since the first grant, against +17% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 2 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

9
44

Total granted

$341k
$227k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+85%
+17%

Still filing today

89%
34%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $40 went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthPhilanthropyEducationInternationalRecreation & SportsReligionOther
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

  • JG
    JUDD GOLDMAN ADAPTIVE SAILING FOUNDATION
    5× · 2019–2023 · $188k · revenue +30%
  • MISERICORDIA FOUNDATION
    3× · 2022–2025 · $30k · revenue +286%
  • P6
    PROJECT 613 NFP
    5× · 2021–2025 · $25k · revenue +25%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $50k
  • CH
    CHILDREN'S HEART FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $20k · revenue +36%
  • AR
    ANTHONY RIZZO FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2019 · $20k
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
The Jonsson Cancer Center Foundation

The jonsson cancer center foundation is the single most important vehicle for raising private funds for cancer research at ucla and plays a key role in advancing cancer treatments and care. please see schedule o for additional information.

—
2
The Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Fdn Group

Susan g. komen 's mission is to save lives by meeting the most critical needs in our communities & investing in breakthrough research to prevent & cure breast cancer.

—
3
Dana-Farber Children's Hospital Cancer Care Inc

To oversee, coordinate and support the Pediatric Oncology Programs at Boston Children's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc.

Health
4
Gastro Intestinal Research Foundation Inc

The GI Research Foundation works to treat, prevent, and cure digestive diseases. In collaboration with the physicians and scientists at the University of Chicago Digestive Diseases Center, we fund innovative clinical and laboratory…

Health
5
Curebound

Curebound's mission is to accelerate cancer research and save lives. we raise and invest strategic funding for innovative adult and pediatric cancer research with one vision: cures in our lifetime.

Health
6
Marc Lustgarten Pancreatic Cancer Foundation

The lustgarten foundation is the largest private funder of pancreatic cancer research in the world. see schedule o.the lustgarten foundation is boldly leading the way through hope and innovation, turning fear into action through education…

Human Services
7
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation

To cure cf and provide all people with cf the opportunity to lead long, fulfilling lives by funding research and drug development, partnering with the cf community, and advancing high-quality, specialized care.

Health
8
Samuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation

The samuel waxman cancer research foundation (the "foundation") funds innovative research to bring faster cures to patients. in addition to supporting ongoing collaborative research in specific cancers, our scientists are investigating the…

—
9
Commonwealth Cancer Consortium Inc

Break through cancer is a foundation dedicated to supporting translational research in the most difficult to treat cancers. our partner organizations are among the top cancer research centers and together, represent some of the most…

—
10
Alcides E Rosaura Diniz Foundation

The mission of the foundation is to raise funds and foster basic and translational research to identify genetic causes of specific cancers, understand how genes contribute to the disease, and use that understanding to help develop better…

—
11
Lung Cancer Research Foundation

The mission of the lung cancer research foundation is to improve lung cancer outcomes by funding research for the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cure of lung cancer.

Health
12
The Johns Hopkins Hospital

For more than 125 years, the mission of the johns hopkins hospital has been to lead the world in the diagnosis and treatment of disease and to train tomorrow's great physicians, nurses and scientists. above all, we aim to provide the…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Advocate Charitable Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Max McGraw Wildlife 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

24 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. 24 of the 54 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
23/24
Grantees still filing
17/24
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $50,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientMISERICORDIA: $40,000 · OtherMISERICORDIAMax McGraw Wildlife Foundation: $23,999 · OtherMax McGraw Wildlife FoundationANTHONY RIZZO FOUNDATION: $20,000 · OtherANTHONY RIZZO FOUNDATIONGRACE LUTHERAN CHURCH: $10,800 · OtherOUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP (OLPH): $10,700 · OtherAMERICAN FRIENDS OF ISRAEL SPORTS CENTER: $10,000 · OtherGRACE LUTHERAN CHURCH: $10,000 · Other+28 more: $70,310 · Other+28 moreJUDD GOLDMAN ADAPTIVE SAILING FOUNDATION: $188,000 · Recreation & SportsJUDD GOLDMAN ADAPTIVE SAILING FOUNDATI…+1 more: $3,650 · Recreation & SportsCHILDREN'S HEART FOUNDATION: $20,000 · PhilanthropyMichael Rolfe Pancreatic Cancer Foundation: $10,000 · Philanthropy+1 more: $500 · PhilanthropyMISERICORDIA FOUNDATION: $30,000 · Human ServicesPROJECT 613 NFP: $25,000 · EducationTHE BOARD OF JEWISH EDUCATION: $1,500 · EducationNEW YORK LAW SCHOOL: $1,000 · EducationGRACE LUTHERAN FOUNDATION INC: $11,300 · HealthADVOCATE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $5,000 · HealthA JUST HARVEST: $4,000 · HealthBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $2,000 · Health+1 more: $500 · HealthTHE EVANGELICAL CATHOLIC INC: $15,000 · ReligionWORLD ASSISTANCE FOR CAMBODIA INC: $2,000 · InternationalHOPE WORLDWIDE LTD: $2,000 · InternationalOPERATION SMILE INC: $1,030 · International
Other$245,809Recreation & Sports$191,650Philanthropy$30,500Human Services$30,000Education$27,500Health$22,800Religion$15,000International$5,030

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetJUDD GOLDMAN ADAPTIVE SAILING FOUNDATION: $188,000 over 5y, 10% of budgetMISERICORDIA FOUNDATION: $30,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetPROJECT 613 NFP: $25,000 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetMax McGraw Wildlife Foundation: $23,999 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetCHILDREN'S HEART FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetTHE EVANGELICAL CATHOLIC INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetGRACE LUTHERAN FOUNDATION INC: $11,300 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMichael Rolfe Pancreatic Cancer Foundation: $10,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetADVOCATE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetISRAEL CANCER RESEARCH FUND INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetA JUST HARVEST: $4,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetGLENVIEW PARK FOUNDATION INC: $3,650 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetHINSDALE JUNIOR WOMAN'S CLUB: $2,995 over 1y, 16% of budgetTHE BOWLERS TO VETERANS LINK: $2,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWORLD ASSISTANCE FOR CAMBODIA INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHOPE WORLDWIDE LTD: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BOARD OF JEWISH EDUCATION: $1,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetOPERATION SMILE INC: $1,030 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNEW YORK LAW SCHOOL: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBLUE CAP FOUNDATION INC: $500 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetRotary Club of San Jose Inc: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetThe Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Foundation Inc: $500 over 1y, 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.

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.

Jewish Federation of …Eugene and Janet Lern…Renaissance Charitabl…American Endowment Fo…Morgan Stanley Global…Network for GoodNational Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Jewish Federation of Metropolitan ChicagoIL17× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · Eugene and Janet Lerner Family Foundation Inc · Renaissance Charitable Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Gondeck Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Gondeck Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%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 54 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 Gondeck 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