· Private foundation
Greenleaf Avenue 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k3 grants · $2k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $21k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| OPEN BOOKS LTD | $50,000 |
| JEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND | $20,938 |
| DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS USA INC | $1,000 |
| SAVE THE CHILDREN FEDERATION INC | $500 |
| OXFAM AMERICA | $350 |
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 (FY17–20, $1.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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 24% of Greenleaf Avenue 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.
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 +24% since the first grant, against +20% for the ones you funded once.
64 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2025, 60 since wound down.
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, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
Northwestern University4× · 2018–2021 · $1.1M · revenue +33%- AFAmerican Friends of Tel Aviv Univ4× · 2018–2021 · $840k · revenue +4%
- OBOPEN BOOKS LTD5× · 2018–2025 · $400k · revenue +36%
Funded once
- CSCHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONone grant, 2019 · $1.0M
- PSPARK SYNAGOGUEone grant, 2021 · $300k
- UOUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $50k · revenue +43%
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.
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.
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…
The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…
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.
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
The organization's mission is to educate students for creative occupations in diverse fields of arts and media.
To educate students to be ethical and socially responsible leaders in a global community.
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 advance the practice of higher education attorneys for the benefit of the institutions they serve.
Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.
Aacsb international provides quality assurance of business school programs, the latest in business education intelligence, thought leadership, and learning and development services.
The american astronomical society (aas), established in 1899, is the major organization of professional astronomers in north america. the basic objective of the aas is to promote the advancement of astronomy and closely related branches of…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Make-a-Wish Foundation of Illinois Inc and the most unlike its peers is Pleasant Lake Parker Pond Assoc. 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 47 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% 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.
66 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. 66 of the 84 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 CHICAGO LITERACY ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Northwestern University ↗
- Who funds American Friends of Tel Aviv Univ ↗
- Who funds JEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND ↗
- Who funds OPEN BOOKS LTD ↗
- Who funds THE CLEVELAND FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CARLETON COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ↗
- Who funds THE RATNER SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds LOOKINGGLASS THEATRE COMPANY ↗
- Who funds GMILUTH CHASODIM (THE HEBREW FREE LOAN ASSOCIATION) ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds MILESTONES AUTISM RESOURCES ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR ARTS-INSPIRED LEARNING ↗
- Who funds SHAKER SCHOOLS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HANNA PERKINS SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds CSU LAW ALUMNI ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds MALTA CONFERENCES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SEEDS OF PEACE INC ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds HILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE ↗
- Who funds Portland Museum of Art ↗
- Who funds LESLIE SHANKMAN SCHOOL CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds CLEVELAND MARSHALL EDUCATION FDN ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS & SCIENCES ↗
- Who funds TREE OF LIFE FOUNDATION ↗
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: James and Susan Ratner Family Foundation · Ronald and Deborah Ratner Family Foundation · Jewish Federation of Cleveland · The Horowitz Ratner Family Foundation · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · The Cleveland Foundation · The Albert B & Audrey G Ratner Family Foundation · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Samuel H & Maria Miller Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · The Barbara and Abraham Miller Family Foundation · The Daniel and Genevieve Ratner 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 Greenleaf Avenue 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.
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- American Academy of Arts & Sciences — 3% of income from government
- Oxfam-America Inc — 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Greenleaf Avenue Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Greenleaf Avenue Foundation 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.