· Private foundation
Laybel Family Foundation
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
- $10k–50k7 grants · $231k
- $50k–250k9 grants · $650k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MI | $125,000 |
| MICHIGAN ADVOCACY PROGRAM | $100,000 |
| BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE | $100,000 |
| USA FOR UNHCR | $75,000 |
| COUNT MI VOTE EDUCATION FUND | $50,000 |
| ACLU FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| ACLU FOUNDATION OF MICHIGAN | $50,000 |
| CENTER FOR MICHIGAN | $50,000 |
| FARMINGTON FRIENDS OF PARKS | $50,000 |
| NATURE CONSERVANCY | $43,000 |
| PROPUBLICA | $40,000 |
| GLEANERS | $40,000 |
| MICHIGAN NATURE ASSOCIATION | $33,000 |
| HIAS | $30,000 |
| MICHIGAN TRAILS AND GREENWAYS ASSOC | $30,000 |
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 (FY17–21, $18k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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.
71 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2025, 58 since wound down; 2 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, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $115k 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
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC9× · 2017–2025 · $751k · revenue +102%- CMCOUNT MI VOTE EDUCATION FUND7× · 2019–2025 · $432k · revenue +592%
United States Association for UNHCR8× · 2017–2025 · $339k · revenue +54%
Funded once
- TMThe Michigan Center for Civic Educationone grant, 2024 · $56k · revenue +2%
- IFINTEGRITY FIRST FOR AMERICA INCone grant, 2022 · $30k · revenue 0%
- PPPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF TNone grant, 2024 · $25k
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.
AJC's mission is to enhance the wellbeing of the Jewish people and Israel, and to advance human rights and democratic values in the United States and around the world. In pursuit of this mission, AJC advances democratic principles, fights…
The organization's mission is to engage in non partisan analysis of u.s. foreign policy in the middle east, with special emphasis on the middle east peace process, and to present policymakers in the united states, in the region and in the…
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.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
To investigate, research, write, publish, present conferences and teach with respect to global, regional, transboundary, and comparative environmental issues and to make the findings from such activities available to the general public; to…
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
Informing and educating the public and decision makers about environmental issues.
At the internet society foundation, we focus on funding initiatives that strengthen the internet in function and reach so that it can effectively serve all people. our work advances the vision of the internet society (isoc): the internet…
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,…
The primary exempt purpose of the mitre corporation is to conduct scientific research activities in the public interest that ensure the safety and security of the united states, enabling solutions and decisions related to complex…
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated and the most unlike its peers is International Rescue Committee 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 48 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% 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 12% 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.
49 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. 49 of the 94 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 WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds COUNT MI VOTE EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds GLEANERS COMMUNITY FOOD BANK OF SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN ↗
- Who funds United States Association for UNHCR ↗
- Who funds JEWISH NATIONAL FUND (KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL) INC ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR MICHIGAN ↗
- Who funds HIAS INC ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN NATURE ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Michigan Advocacy Program ↗
- Who funds PRO PUBLICA INC ↗
- Who funds The Michigan Center for Civic Education ↗
- Who funds FORGOTTEN HARVEST INC ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds INTEGRITY FIRST FOR AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR FLINT ↗
- Who funds SOCIETY FOR HUMANISTIC JUDAISM ↗
- Who funds The Stewardship Network ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL YIDDISH BOOK CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR JEWISH HISTORY INC ↗
- Who funds THE INNOCENCE PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB 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 Kresge Foundation · Charles Stewart Mott Foundation · McGregor Fund · The Fred & Barbara Erb Family Foundation · Harry a and Margaret D Towsley Foundation · Dte Energy Foundation · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · WK Kellogg Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Laybel Family 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.
- Hias Inc — 88% of income from government
- National Yiddish Book Center Inc — 2% 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.