How much did Greater Rochester Health Foundation grant in FY2024?

Health$29MEducation$10MHuman Services$9.9MCrime & Legal$4.1MHousing & Shelter$2.5MCivil Rights$2.2MCommunity Improvement$2.0MYouth Development$1.9MOther$0

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

Each cell is that theme’s share of the year’s giving · ⚡ ringed cells mark a flagged jump.

03FY2024 · 204 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

Grant-size mix · FY2016–FY2024

FY16

52%

37%

$6.8M

FY17

10%

37%

50%

$7.2M

FY18

10%

28%

60%

$8.1M

FY20

45%

44%

$8.2M

FY21

53%

40%

$7.7M

FY22

10%

61%

27%

$9.7M

FY23

11%

60%

28%

$9.5M

FY24

10%

54%

33%

$8.9M

Under $10k$10k–50k$50k–250k$250k+

In FY2016, 37% of your dollars went out in $250k+ checks; by FY2024 that was 33%. Each year’s bar is its own 100%, so the bands show the mix, not the total.

$5,000

Median grant

States reached

$274M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
National Parent Leadership Institute	$969,998
Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency dba Common Ground Health	$744,992
Perinatal Network of Monroe County	$650,000
Children's Institute Inc	$300,000
Society for the Protection & Care of Children	$300,000
Villa of Hope	$204,089
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Wayne County	$195,000
S2AY Rural Health Network - DBA Pivotal Public Health Partnership	$195,000
Society for the Protection & Care of Children	$194,809
Endless Highway Inc	$193,294
Western New York Independent Living Inc	$174,268
Coordinated Care Services Inc	$155,000
Rochester refugee Resettlement Services Inc	$154,697
The Father Laurence-Larry-Tracy Advocacy Center	$153,023
Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency dba Common Ground Health	$150,000

02The need

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY24–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 67% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

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.

03Your edge

The orgs you fund vs the ones you don’t

You skew toward the sturdier end of a fragile field.

The organisations you back are larger and somewhat healthier than comparable nonprofits nearby that you don't fund — but the edge is real, not dramatic: 76% of those you fund still carry a fragility flag, against 76% of the unfunded. In a sector where most run thin, you lean toward resilience rather than backing a financially secure elite.

The kind of organization you back

56% of the organizations you back live mainly on donations, against 34% of the comparable nonprofits nearby you don’t fund. The ones you pick show fewer of the warning signs below than the field you don’t fund.

What they work on

Human Services26% vs 12%
Food & Nutrition6% vs 1%
Health16% vs 12%

The nearby nonprofits you don’t fund are concentrated in Recreation & Sports, Arts & Culture, Public Safety & Disaster.

How they hold up

Run recurring deficits24% vs 35%
Burning through reserves6% vs 16%
Less than a month of cash18% vs 12%

you fund (89) you don’t (1224)· share of each group

You fund (70)You don’t (774)

Median size (revenue)$2.8M$892k

Operating margin6%4%

Financially fragile76%76%

Comparison vs unfunded, size/cause-matched nonprofits in your county. Association, not proof — the funder enables, it does not solely cause.

repeat funding

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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$56M · 211 repeat orgs$6.4M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +36% since the first grant, against +21% for the ones you funded once.

211 repeat relationships — 121 still active in FY2024, 90 since wound down; 34 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

Of your 167 multi-year relationships, 46 repeat the same amount every year (19% of multi-year dollars), the pattern of a standing commitment. The rest vary year to year. Grant terms aren’t stated in the filing; this is inferred from the payment pattern.

You also report $14Mapproved for future payment (Form 990-PF, Part XV) — grants already committed but not yet paid, a forward pledge the current-year ledger doesn’t show.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

211

190

Total granted

$56M

$4.7M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+36%

+21%

Still filing today

65%

41%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.7M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Human ServicesHealthEducationArts & CultureCrime & LegalCommunity ImprovementOther

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

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER
8× · 2017–2024 · $3.8M · revenue +81%
TR
THE ROCHESTER GENERAL HOSPITAL
6× · 2017–2023 · $2.2M · revenue +80%
NATIONAL PARENT LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE INC
3× · 2022–2024 · $2.2M · revenue +9% · 80% of their budget
Founded in 2017, the National Parent Leadership Institute has grown into a nationally recognized organization equipping parents with civic skills to advocate for children, anchored by a flagship 20-week Parent Leadership Training Institute (PLTI) program with more than 30 years of curriculum history.

Funded once

SF
SOCIETY FOR PROTECTION & CARE OF CHILDRE
one grant, 2019 · $377k
RR
ROCHESTER REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM
one grant, 2017 · $231k
CS
COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY OF NEW YORKgraduated
one grant, 2022 · $200k · revenue +53%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

Activities, outputs, outcomes

Most can say what their work is for. Few can show it changed. Click an area to step through it.

Of 32 organizations, 0 show a change. The rest report what they did, or only what they hope it’s for.

Click an area to read it, and step through its organizations.

Read from 32 of the 52 organizations you fund across these 5 areas— those you fund most heavily — in their own program-service reporting. Achievements are the organizations’ own.

case studies

One relationship, up close

One you funded repeatedly, traced through its own filings and the public record.

Fatherhood Connection Inc

Conviction

Sustained conviction in resilient, concentrated bet

Greater Rochester Health Foundation has stood alongside Fatherhood Connection across five consecutive years of funding (2020–2024), committing $367,500 to an organization whose founder began developing its curriculum as far back as 1998. As the Foundation's support deepened, Fatherhood Connection expanded parenting-skills programming for men across Monroe, Genesee, Livingston, Steuben, Seneca, and Cattaraugus Counties, and net assets grew 33.9x over the filing period — even as revenue held flat, a pattern that reflects both the organization's durability and the real concentration risk that comes with the Foundation representing a peak of 31% of their budget.

5× · 2020–2024

Funded

$368k

You committed

31%

Peak share of budget

-25%

Their revenue since

Trajectories are each organization’s own subsequent IRS filings; milestones are from the public record, linked to source. Revenue is the organization’s whole income from every source, not a return on these grants: we date what happened after a grant, and do not claim the grant caused it.

04Your field

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.

Rochester Management Inc

To provide clean, safe, well maintained, and affordable apartments and townhouses, suitable for anyone, in many locations throughout rochester, new york.

Housing & Shelter

Rochester General Health System

Rochester general health system, provides patient care, senior housing, laboratory services, and community outreach to residents and other clients in monroe county, new york and several surrounding counties.

Health

Rochester Regional Health

The organization is organized and operated for the benefit of all of the affiliates within rochester regional health system. the organization supports and assists the affiliates by reviewing and monitoring their missions, objectives,…

Health

The Unity Hospital of Rochester

See schedule oto make a positive difference in the lives and health status of individuals in the city of rochester, ny and western monroe county. we will educate our community, our providers, and future health care professionals in order…

Health

Neighborhood Housing Services of Rochester Inc

NeighborWorks Rochester collaborates with people and partners to strengthen, sustain and promote city neighborhoods. Our services are available to a wide spectrum of the community, including existing and potential homeowners, tenants and…

Housing & Shelter

Gouverneur Hospital

Our mission is to provide skilled, compassionate, cost-effective care that promotes wellness and meets the community's healthcare needs.

Health

Rochester Hope Inc

Rochester hope, inc. (the organization) is a not-for-profit that was born in october 2022 to bring caring hands to the heart of rochester, new york. the organization operates a free pantry with food, personal care items, diapers, baby food…

Community Improvement

RochesterMonroe County Homeless Continuum of Care Inc

The Rochester/Monroe County Homeless Continuum of Care (CoC) is a collaborative partnership which provides leadership, linkages, education, and guidance to eliminate homelessness.

Housing & Shelter

Greater Rochester Housing Partnership Inc

Greater rochester housing partnership, inc. (grhp) was established primarily to provide financing for affordable housing to social services and housing agencies, either directly or by participating with banks, in the rochester, new york…

Housing & Shelter

One Roc Inc

The company's mission is to create new jobs, increase regional wealth, raise regional gdp and enhance opportunity; to invest in a world-class economic development ecosystem where incumbent businesses are thriving, new firms are locating,…

Community Improvement

Rochesterworks Inc

The rochesterworks system stimulates local economic growth by providing outstanding employment education, support, and training services.

Employment

United Way of Greater Rochester Inc

United way of greater rochester's mission is to unite the good will and resources of the greater rochester community so that everyone can thrive. united way supports a broad network of human service organizations, community initiatives and…

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Partnership for Ontario County Inc and the most unlike its peers is Marie C and Joseph C Wilson Foundation 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.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 29 years old; the field is 24. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 14% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 8% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

2%5/290

the rest of the field

375/4,774

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.

05the grantee network

252 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. 252 of the 439 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

239/252

Grantees still filing

174/252

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$23,583,533Health$18,872,462Human Services$9,559,644Education$7,715,322Crime & Legal$3,324,713Housing & Shelter$1,266,287Philanthropy$1,228,094

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.

13 internal · 5 shared anchors

Your portfolio is already a network

CCSI, Causewave Community Partners, and the Council of Agency Executives collaborated on a project to support local non-profits with operational expertise, with CCSI serving as fiscal sponsor. It’s one of 13 direct ties among 30 of your grantees, who also cluster around 5 shared regional anchors.

Ties are read from news and organization websites, so they’re directional, not exhaustive; each links to its source.

Grantees connected

Grantee↔grantee ties

Shared anchors (2+ grantees)

108

External links

Tap any organization to trace its collaborations — shared anchors pull toward the center

min. connectionstheme28 shown · 19 ties

grantee you fund external partner named by both stated inferred

Tap any organization in the graph to trace its collaborations — or start with the strongest ties below.

Strongest grantee↔grantee ties

↔
corroborated Coalition · Joint program
↔
explicit Joint program
↔
explicit Joint program
↔
explicit Joint program
↔
explicit Referral network

Anchors several grantees share

4 grantees
3 grantees
2 grantees
2 grantees
2 grantees

Joint program 73Affiliation 17Coalition 14Referral network 8Funding 7Collaboration 1Fiscal sponsorship 1Merger / affiliation 1

Partnerships are LLM-extracted from news and organisation websites, not from tax filings — directional, not exhaustive. Each edge links to its source; corroborated edges were named independently by both organisations.

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.

Esl Charitable FoundationNY241.1× affinity136 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Esl Charitable Foundation · United Way of Greater Rochester and the Finger Lakes Inc · Max and Marian Farash Charitable Foundation · Rochester Area Community Foundation · Daisy Marquis Jones Foundation · William & Sheila Konar Foundation · Paychex Charitable Foundation Inc · Rochester Area Community Foundation Depository Inc · Finger Lakes Performing Provider System Inc · Charles J & Burton S August Family Foundation · The Florence M Muller Foundation · Ames-Amzalak Memorial Trust

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 Greater Rochester Health 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

2get no government money at all

70report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)

0rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–25

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.

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