· Private foundation
Harold M & Adeline S Morrison Family Foundation
Its FY2024 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 clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k58 grants · $203k
- $10k–50k25 grants · $540k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $454k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| COLLEGE OF LAKE COUNTY FOUNDATION | $225,000 |
| RAVINIA FESTIVAL | $110,000 |
| COOL LEARNING EXPERIENCE | $65,000 |
| OPENLANDS | $53,500 |
| BRUSHWOOD CENTER OF RYERSON WOODS | $47,500 |
| CHICAGO VOYAGERS | $45,000 |
| RAGDALE FOUNDATION | $37,500 |
| LAKE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $37,500 |
| MUDDY SNEAKERS | $35,000 |
| CHICAGO BOTANIC GARDEN | $30,000 |
| WAYFINDERS | $29,000 |
| NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE FEDERATION | $29,000 |
| LIBERTY PRAIRIE | $25,000 |
| CHICAGO BOTANIC GARDEN | $25,000 |
| CAMP FOR ALL KIDS | $25,000 |
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 (FY17–24, $22k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 37% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 +39% since the first grant, against +31% for the ones you funded once.
99 repeat relationships — 57 still active in FY2024, 42 since wound down; 20 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $122k 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
- TPTHE POTOMAC CONSERVANCY INC8× · 2017–2024 · $705k · revenue +38%
- RRARE8× · 2017–2024 · $556k · revenue +2%
RAVINIA FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION8× · 2017–2024 · $427k · revenue +54%
Funded once
- TPThe Phoenix Pact Fundone grant, 2017 · $400k · revenue +4%
- RURush University Medical Centerone grant, 2021 · $333k · revenue +14%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2019 · $200k
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.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
The mission of the lincoln park conservancy is to preserve and enhance the inspiring beauty of chicago's largest and most visited park for current and future generations. we believe that beauty matters. that it has the transformative power…
Eastern national promotes the public's understanding and support of america's national parks and other public trust partners by providing quality educational experiences, products and services.
The Chicago Parks Foundation is a separate 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization that also serves as the strategic partner for the coordination of fundraising and charitable resources for the Chicago Park District.
Conservation legacy engages future leaders who protect, restore, and enhance our nation's lands through community-based service.in 2024, conservation legacy engaged 2,524 participants who completed over 1.5 million service hours on public…
The endowment works collaboratively with partners in the public and private sectors to advance systemic, transformative, and sustainable change for the health and vitality of the nation's working forests and forest reliant communities.
To sustain, restore, and enhance the nation's fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats.
Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
Lake Forest Graduate School of Management's mission is to bring the real world to business education and leadership development.
The organization's mission is to conserve and promote new england's native plants to ensure healthy, biologically diverse landscapes.
Protection and expansion of threatened urban and wildland forest ecosystems. See Part III
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Roberti Community House. 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 33 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) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 6% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.6% 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.
150 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. 150 of the 203 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
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.
- Who funds THE POTOMAC CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds RARE ↗
- Who funds RAVINIA FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds The Phoenix Pact Fund ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds Rush University Medical Center ↗
- Who funds OPENLANDS ↗
- Who funds College of Lake County Foundation ↗
- Who funds Ragdale Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE LAKE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BRUSHWOOD CENTER AT RYERSON WOODS ↗
- Who funds TFK Chicago Voyagers ↗
- Who funds LAKE FOREST OPEN LANDS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds LIBERTY PRAIRIE NFP ↗
- Who funds DISCOVERY PLACE INC ↗
- Who funds ADVANCE ILLINOIS NFP ↗
- Who funds COOL LEARNING EXPERIENCE ↗
- Who funds Muddy Sneakers Inc ↗
- Who funds CleanAIRE NC ↗
- Who funds North Carolina Wildlife Federation Inc ↗
- Who funds R Bruce Irons Camp Fund ↗
- Who funds Camp for All Kids ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL GRANTMAKERS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds TreesCharlotte ↗
- Who funds Legacy Reentry Foundation NFP ↗
- Who funds Hermitage Artist Retreat Inc ↗
- Who funds ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds History Center of Lake Forest-Lake Bluff ↗
- Who funds ELAWA FARM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST ↗
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: John and Kathleen Schreiber Foundation D/B/A Schreiber Philanthropy · The Lake County Community Foundation · Hunter Family Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · The Gorter Family Foundation · Northwestern Memorial HealthCare Group · Clarks Fork Foundation · Healthcare Foundation of Northern Lake County · The Grainger Foundation Inc · Butler Family Foundation · Vivo Foundation · Julian Grace 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 Harold M & Adeline S Morrison Family 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.
- Christopher Reeve Foundation — 49% of income from government
- Yale University — 12% of income from government
- Worcester Polytechnic Institute — 8% of income from government
- Mote Marine Laboratory Inc — 4% of income from government
- Cradles to Crayons Inc — 2% of income from government
- Hermitage Artist Retreat Inc — 1% 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 Harold M & Adeline S Morrison Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Harold M & Adeline S Morrison Family 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.