· Private foundation
Katten Muchin Rosenman Foundation Inc
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 FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k6 grants · $34k
- $10k–50k10 grants · $220k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $334k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNITED JEWISH APPEAL FEDERATION | $233,500 |
| HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF GREATER LOS ANGELES | $50,000 |
| YMCA OF METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES | $50,000 |
| CHICAGO LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS | $34,625 |
| WEST SIDE CAMPAIGN AGAINST HUNGER | $30,000 |
| ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE | $30,000 |
| CHARLOTTE CENTER FOR LEGAL ADVOCACY | $25,000 |
| CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF WASHINGTON | $25,000 |
| RILEY'S WAY FOUNDATION (THE CALL FOR KINDNESS) | $25,000 |
| B'NAI BRITH MEN'S CAMP ASSOCIATION | $20,000 |
| COPE FOUNDATION INC | $10,000 |
| HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE OF NORTH TEXAS INC | $10,000 |
| CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION CHICAGO CHAPTER | $10,000 |
| LEGAL AID SOCIETY (NEW YORK) | $8,500 |
| NEW YORK LAWYERS FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST | $8,000 |
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 (FY20–25, $586k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 83% 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +32% since the first grant, against +13% for the ones you funded once.
236 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2025, 222 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $110k 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
- JUJEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO5× · 2020–2024 · $571k · revenue +13%
- UJUNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC6× · 2020–2025 · $360k · revenue +46%
- LALEGAL AID CHICAGO4× · 2020–2023 · $301k · revenue +92%
Funded once
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC FUND INCone grant, 2020 · $86k · revenue -54%- TATHE AMERICAN RED CROSS ( NORTH CAROLINA REGION )one grant, 2024 · $50k
- CLCHICAGO LAWYERS COMM FOR CIVIL RIGHTSone grant, 2020 · $47k
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.
Council for court excellence's (cce's) mission is to bring people together to conduct research, educate, and advocate to make d.c.'s unique legal systems more just, equitable, and accountable to the community.
To attract, recruit, advance, and retain attorneys of color in the twin cities through education and collaboration with member organizations.
To provide meaningful access to high quality, civil legal services in the pursuit of justice for as many low income persons and members of vulnerable populations throughout colorado as possible.
Preservation of civil liberties through litigation and public education.
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.
Cre was established exclusively for real estate advisors who provide intelligent, unbiased, and trusted advice for a client or employer. the purpose of the organization is to serve as an information resource and to provide its members with…
The common application is a not-for-profit membership organization of over 1,100 colleges and universities across the globe committed to access, equity, and integrity in the college admission process. every year, over 1.5 million students…
The american arbitration association ("aaa") is dedicated to effective, efficient and economical methods of dispute resolution through education, technology and solutions-oriented service.
See schedule onorc at the university of chicago conducts research and data science on critical societal issues to guide decision-making and the development of programs and public policy. our experts identify relationships and trends, and…
Empowering college admission counseling professionals through education, advocacy, and community.
To advance the practice of higher education attorneys for the benefit of the institutions they serve.
We empower directors and transform boards to be future ready.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Local Initiatives Support Corporation and the most unlike its peers is Mission Pow-Mia. 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 34 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
383 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. 383 of the 581 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 JEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds UNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC ↗
- Who funds LEGAL AID CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Inc ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL KIDNEY FOUNDATION OF ILLINOIS ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO THEATRE GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy Inc ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC COUNSEL ↗
- Who funds RAVINIA FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds THE CHICAGO BAR FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds 100 WOMEN IN FINANCE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BERNICE & PHILIP FRIEZE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Council for Childrens Rights Inc ↗
- Who funds VOLUNTEERS OF LEGAL SERVICE INC ↗
- Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC FUND INC ↗
- Who funds HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL FOUNDATION OF ILLINOIS INC ↗
- Who funds GATEWAY FOR CANCER RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds BREAKTHROUGH NEW YORK INC ↗
- Who funds EASTER SEALS DUPAGE & THE FOX VALLEY REGION ↗
- Who funds LEGAL SERVICES NYC ↗
- Who funds THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds SIGNATURE THEATRE COMPANY INC ↗
- Who funds ACADEMY FOR URBAN SCHOOL LEADERSHIP ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR WELL-BEING IN LAW ↗
- Who funds WINGS PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds Young Men's Christian Association of Metropolitan Los Angeles ↗
- Who funds THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds WEST SIDE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY LIFE ↗
- Who funds HER JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds The University of Texas Law School 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: The Sidley Austin Foundation · Perkins Coie Foundation · United Way Miami Inc · Polk Bros Foundation Inc · Quinn Emanuel Foundation · The Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Foundation · Equal Justice Works · Circle of Service Foundation · The Morrison & Foerster Foundation · Robert R McCormick Foundation · Mc Dermott Will and Emery Charitable Foundation · Weil Gotshal & Manges Foundation Inc
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 Katten Muchin Rosenman 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Enterprise Community Partners Inc — 22% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% 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 Katten Muchin Rosenman Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Katten Muchin Rosenman 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.