· Private foundation
Horner 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.
Read this first · the figures below need context
85% of Horner Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Schwab Charitable Fund, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 39 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2023, the last year Horner Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 39 organizations, $112k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| AMERICAN RIVERS | $5,000 |
| LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION | $5,000 |
| HIGH-JUMP | $3,500 |
| OBAMA FOUNDATION | $2,500 |
| CAMP NEBAGAMON FOUNDATION | $2,500 |
| OBAMA FOUNDATION | $2,500 |
| LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION | $2,500 |
| HIGH-JUMP | $2,500 |
| HARVARD LAW SCHOOL | $2,500 |
| MAGEN DAVID ADOM (RED CROSS OF ISRA | $2,500 |
| FAMILY FOCUS | $2,500 |
| FAMILY FOCUS | $2,500 |
| MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY | $2,500 |
| FAMILY FOCUS | $2,500 |
| ART INSTITUTE SUSTAINING FELLOWS | $2,500 |
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 (FY21–24, $28k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 62% 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.
69 repeat relationships — 59 still active in FY2023, 10 since wound down; 22 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call). Read against FY2023, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $23k 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
- HJHIGH JUMP4× · 2021–2024 · $23k · revenue +34%
- LSLEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION4× · 2021–2024 · $22k · revenue +22%
AMERICAN RIVERS INC4× · 2021–2024 · $20k · revenue +177%
Funded once
- RAREBECCA A COPELAND FUND FOR SOCIALone grant, 2022 · $5k
- GFGLOBAL FUND FOR WOMANone grant, 2021 · $4k
- JUJEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGOgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $3k · revenue +33%
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 organization's mission is to educate students for creative occupations in diverse fields of arts and media.
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 chicago public education fund (the fund) is a nonprofit organization that improves public schools in chicago by investing in the talented educators who lead them.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
Food forward fights hunger and prevents food waste by rescuing fresh surplus produce, connecting this abundance with people experiencing food insecurity, and inspiring others to do the same.
Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.
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…
Public health institute generates and promotes research, leadership and partnerships to build capacity for strong public health policy, programs, systems and practices.
The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
As a diverse community of learners, we cultivate integrity, curiosity, connection and resilience.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Action Against Hunger - Usa and the most unlike its peers is California Reentry Program. 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 40 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
71 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. 71 of the 126 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 DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC ↗
- Who funds HIGH JUMP ↗
- Who funds LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN RIVERS INC ↗
- Who funds University of Chicago ↗
- Who funds THE BARACK OBAMA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Francis W Parker School ↗
- Who funds BLAINE COUNTY HUNGER COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds Family Focus ↗
- Who funds REBECCA A COPELAND FUND FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds Kenneth C Griffin Museum of Science and Industry ↗
- Who funds Elyssas Mission NFP ↗
- Who funds CAMP NEBAGAMON ↗
- Who funds MIKVA CHALLENGE GRANT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CONNECTICUT COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER ↗
- Who funds The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ↗
- Who funds BOWERY RESIDENTS COMMITTEE INC ↗
- Who funds OLD TOWN SCHOOL OF FOLK MUSIC ↗
- Who funds HIGHER GROUND USA INC ↗
- Who funds Highland Park Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds WE CARE SOLAR ↗
- Who funds UNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC ↗
- Who funds GREATER CHATHAM INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds JEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO ↗
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: Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · Marin Community Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Leonard & Beryl Buck Foundation · Bothin Foundation · Polk Bros Foundation Inc · The San Francisco Foundation · Sacks Family 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 Horner 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.
- Connecticut College — 0% of income from government
- Western Rivers Conservancy — 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 Horner Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Horner 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.