Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

Jennifer Linscott Tietgen Family Foundation Inc

Its FY2021 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$3.1M
Granted FY2021
8
Grants FY2021
4
States reached
$1.6M
Largest
01What you fund
01

What you funded, over time

By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 88% of JENNIFER LINSCOTT TIETGEN FAMILY FOUNDATION INC’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.

02FY2021 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2021

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $108k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $342k
  • $250k+2 grants · $2.7M
$135,645
Median grant
4
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$1,597,648
ROB AND PEGGY WACKERMAN FUND$1,063,355
ROB AND PEGGY WACKERMAN FUND$153,763
Individual grant recipient$135,645
BUCHBINDER FAMILY FUND$53,068
MELANOMA EDUCATION FOUNDATION$48,260
HALL FAMILY FUND$40,000
MCSHANE FAMILY FUND$20,000
02The need
03

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 (FY17–21) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 99% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%MELANOMA EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $48k → 10%HALL FAMILY FUND: $40k → 11%BUCHBINDER FAMILY FUND: $53k → 13%HONEOYE FALLS-LIMA HIGH SCHOOL: $3k → 14%JENNIFER'S WHITE ENVELOPE: $1.6M → 11%MCSHANE FAMILY FUND: $20k → 8%FAMILY RESOURCE ASSOCIATES: $25k → 6%MELANOMA EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%ROSWELL PARK: $115k → 13%HONEOYE FALLS-LIMA HIGH SCHOOL: $3k → 14%JENNIFER'S WHITE ENVELOPE: $136k → 11%MELANOMA EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%HONEOYE FALLS-LIMA HIGH SCHOOL: $3k → 14%ROB AND PEGGY WACKERMAN FUND: $1.1M → 11%MELANOMA EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%HONEOYE FALLS-LIMA HIGH SCHOOL: $1k → 14%ROB AND PEGGY WACKERMAN FUND: $154k → 11%MELANOMA EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%HONEOYE FALLS-LIMA HIGH SCHOOL: $1k → 14%HARBOR HOUSE OF ROCHESTER: $50k → 14%HARBOR HOUSE OF ROCHESTER: $50k → 14%HARBOR HOUSE OF ROCHESTER: $50k → 14%HARBOR HOUSE OF ROCHESTER: $50k → 14%FINGERLAKES REGIONAL BURN ASSOC: $10k → 14%FINGER LAKES REGIONAL BURN ASSOC: $10k → 14%FINGER LAKES REGIONAL BURN ASSOC: $10k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
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
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.

9%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$329k · 4 repeat orgs$3.3M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +29% since the first grant, against +3% for the ones you funded once.

4 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2021, 3 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
3

Total granted

$329k
$282k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+29%
+3%

Still filing today

75%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 2% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3.1M went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21
ReligionPhilanthropyHealthOther

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

  • HH
    HARBOR HOUSE OF ROCHESTER INC
    4× · 2017–2020 · $200k · revenue +29% · 34% of their budget
  • ME
    MELANOMA EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC
    5× · 2017–2021 · $88k · revenue +79% · 55% of their budget
  • FL
    FINGER LAKES REGIONAL BURN ASSOCIATION INC
    3× · 2017–2019 · $30k · revenue -8%

Funded once

  • RP
    ROSWELL PARK ALLIANCE FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2017 · $142k · revenue -2%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2019 · $115k
  • FR
    Family Resource Associates Inc
    one grant, 2019 · $25k · revenue +3%

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

04Your field
04the grantee network

5 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 5 of the 12 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
3/5
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Individual grant recipient — $1,733,293 · OtherIndividual grant recipientROB AND PEGGY WACKERMAN FUND — $1,217,118 · OtherROB AND PEGGY WACKERMAN FUNDIndividual grant recipient — $115,000 · Other+6 more — $178,747 · Other+6 moreHARBOR HOUSE OF ROCHESTER INC — $200,000 · ReligionROSWELL PARK ALLIANCE FOUNDATION — $142,198 · PhilanthropyMELANOMA EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC — $88,260 · Health
Other$3,244,158Religion$200,000Philanthropy$142,198Health$88,260

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetHARBOR HOUSE OF ROCHESTER INC — $200,000 over 4y, 34% of budgetMELANOMA EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC — $88,260 over 5y, 55% of budgetFINGER LAKES REGIONAL BURN ASSOCIATION INC — $30,000 over 3y, 18% of budgetFamily Resource Associates Inc — $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budget
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 HARBOR HOUSE OF ROCHESTER INC
  • Who funds ROSWELL PARK ALLIANCE FOUNDATION
  • Who funds MELANOMA EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC
  • Who funds FINGER LAKES REGIONAL BURN ASSOCIATION INC
  • Who funds Family Resource Associates Inc

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.

Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Jennifer Linscott Tietgen Family Foundation Inc 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 10%4%15%34%60%your share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from governmentmedian 7%
  • Family Resource Associates Inc7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
typical government reliance, FY2025

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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 12 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph