Skip to content
Ira C Kaplan & Anita M Migday Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Ira C Kaplan & Anita M Migday Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$58k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$58k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Animals$204kEducation$116kFood & Nutrition$20kInternational$10kHuman Services$6k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$58,125
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION$58,125
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 (FY22–24, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%NEADS INC: $5k → 11%NEADS: $1k → 11%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

WA
MT
MA
OH
NJ
CO
NM
AR
TN
HI
AL
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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$319k · 7 repeat orgs$37k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
9

Total granted

$319k
$37k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+16%
+79%

Still filing today

86%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsEducationHuman ServicesOther
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

  • OS
    OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
    2× · 2024–2025 · $116k · revenue +9%
  • MA
    MORRIS ANIMAL FOUNDATION
    3× · 2021–2023 · $30k · revenue +16%
  • TE
    THE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEE
    3× · 2022–2024 · $13k · revenue +104%

Funded once

  • OS
    OHIO STATE CVM COMMUNITY CUPBOARD
    one grant, 2023 · $20k
  • DA
    Darwins Ark Foundationgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $10k · revenue ×26
  • OS
    OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
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
Global Animal Partnership
Animals
2
The Animal Welfare Foundation
—
3
Raskels Rescue
Animals
4
The Pet Care Trust
Animals
5
Muttsnstuff

Rescue animals

Animals
6
North Bay Animal Services
Animals
7
Animal Diplomacy

Supporting and assisting with rescue, sheltering, spay/neuter, and rehoming of cats and dogs in needy developing countries. Our current exclusive focus is on Egypt and the Egyptian Society for Mercy to Animals.

Animals
8
Animal Wellness Foundation

Animal wellness foundation began operations focused mainly on the rescue and rehabilitation of companion animals. we have expanded our work to advance a range of animal protection priorities, but the care of companion animals has remained…

Animals
9
Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy Inc
Philanthropy
10
Fur Animal Rescue

Animal rescue organization dedicated to finding homes for animals at the animal shelter. we also provde vet care foster homes, and assistance with homing for special needs animals.

Animals
11
Animal Assistance Foundation
—
12
Martha's Farm Animal Sanctuary
Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Morris Animal Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Bullmastiff Rescuers Inc. 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

9 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. 9 of the 16 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE THERIOGENOLOGY FOUNDATION: $135,973 · AnimalsTHE THERIOGENOLOGY FOUNDATIONMORRIS ANIMAL FOUNDATION: $30,000 · AnimalsMORRIS ANIMAL FOUNDATIONTHE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEE: $12,500 · AnimalsTHE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEEDarwins Ark Foundation: $10,000 · AnimalsANIMAL HUMANE ASSOCIATION OF NEW MEXICO INC: $8,500 · Animals+2 more: $3,000 · AnimalsOHIO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $116,250 · EducationOHIO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONOHIO STATE CVM COMMUNITY CUPBOARD: $20,000 · OtherOHIO STATE…HEIFER INTERNATIONAL: $10,000 · OtherHEIFER INT…OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE: $2,000 · OtherOHIO STATE…+4 more: $2,378 · Other+4 moreNEADS INC: $6,000 · Human Services
Animals$199,973Education$116,250Other$34,378Human Services$6,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE THERIOGENOLOGY FOUNDATION: $135,973 over 6y, 26% of budgetOHIO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $116,250 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMORRIS ANIMAL FOUNDATION: $30,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetTHE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEE: $12,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetDarwins Ark Foundation: $10,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetANIMAL HUMANE ASSOCIATION OF NEW MEXICO INC: $8,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetNEADS INC: $6,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMAUI HUMANE SOCIETY: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBULLMASTIFF RESCUERS INC: $1,000 over 1y, 1.1% 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.

  • Who funds THE THERIOGENOLOGY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds MORRIS ANIMAL FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds THE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEE ↗
  • Who funds Darwins Ark Foundation ↗
  • Who funds ANIMAL HUMANE ASSOCIATION OF NEW MEXICO INC ↗
  • Who funds NEADS INC ↗
  • Who funds MAUI HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds BULLMASTIFF RESCUERS INC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Ira C Kaplan & Anita M Migday Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ira C Kaplan & Anita M Migday Foundation Inc. 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%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Neads Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Ira C Kaplan & Anita M Migday Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to Ira C Kaplan & Anita M Migday Foundation Inc 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.

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 16 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 Ira C Kaplan & Anita M Migday’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