· Private foundation
Kenneth and Lois Lippmann Charitable 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 FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k11 grants · $18k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $40k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $75k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NORTH SALEM OPEN LAND FOUNDATION | $75,000 |
| MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING | $30,000 |
| RUTH KEELER MEMORIAL LIBRARY | $10,000 |
| DEGREGORIO FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| HARLEM ACADEMY | $5,000 |
| WEATHERSFIELD FOUNDATION | $2,500 |
| FRIENDS OF CANCER RESEARCH | $2,500 |
| THE JIMMY FUND | $1,000 |
| RAMAPO COLLEGE | $1,000 |
| MAYO CLINIC | $200 |
| Individual grant recipient | $200 |
| AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY | $200 |
| Individual grant recipient | $100 |
| NATIONAL AUDOBON SOCIETY | $100 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 24% of your 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 +53% since the first grant, against +39% for the ones you funded once.
21 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down; 7 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, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k 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
- NSNORTH SALEM OPEN LAND FOUNDATION INC9× · 2017–2025 · $382k · revenue +338%
- RKRUTH KEELER MEMORIAL LIBRARY8× · 2017–2025 · $65k · revenue +53%
- HAHARLEM ACADEMY9× · 2017–2025 · $32k · revenue +83%
Funded once
- NYNEW YORK WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER FUND INCone grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +4%
- TGTHE GARDEN CONSERVANCY INCgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue +47%
- OEONE ELEUTHERA FOUNDATIONone grant, 2020 · $5k · revenue -35%
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 samuel waxman cancer research foundation (the "foundation") funds innovative research to bring faster cures to patients. in addition to supporting ongoing collaborative research in specific cancers, our scientists are investigating the…
The mission of the hudson river foundation is to inspire and inform action through science and engaging people to enhance the hudson river, estuary, and watershed (see schedule o).
Asco association promotes the common business interests of its members by: (1) advocating for policies that improve the quality of cancer care; (2) maintaining the highest standards of oncology medical care through programs supporting…
Operate a state-of-the-art, world-class genomic research center that creates and uses advanced genomics to understand the genetic basis of disease. for more information, see schedule o.
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
To support cancer research and public education relating to prevention, earlier diagnosis, better treatments and ultimately, a cure for cancer.
The museum's mission statement is: "to discover, interpret, and disseminate - through scientific research and education - knowledge about human cultures, the natural world, and the universe."
Northeast college of health sciences (the college) is committed to academic excellence, leadership, and professional best practices in the health sciences.
Sfn's mission is to: 1. advance the understanding of the brain and the nervous system by bringing together scientists of all segments of neuroscience, by facilitating the integration of research directed at all levels of biological…
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
Dartmouth College educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership, through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge.
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Park Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Wethersfield Foundation Inc. 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 36 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% 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.
25 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. 25 of the 47 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 NORTH SALEM OPEN LAND FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds RUTH KEELER MEMORIAL LIBRARY ↗
- Who funds HARLEM ACADEMY ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER FUND INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds Swim Across America Inc ↗
- Who funds THE GARDEN CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds READWORKSINC ↗
- Who funds ONE ELEUTHERA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds DEGREGORIO FAMILY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Westchester Land Trust Inc ↗
- Who funds Friends of Cancer Research ↗
- Who funds WETHERSFIELD FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE ZACHARY & ELIZABETH M FISHER CENTER FOR ALZHEIMER'S RESEARCH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds CREUTZFELDT-JAKOB DISEASE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds BRASS CITY CHARTER SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE BIG SIOUX RIVER ↗
- Who funds WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION ↗
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: National Philanthropic Trust · The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Kenneth and Lois Lippmann Charitable 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.
- Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution — 63% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% 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 Kenneth and Lois Lippmann Charitable Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Kenneth and Lois Lippmann Charitable 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.