Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

Leddy 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.

$40k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$6k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20202025.

Human Services$99kHealth$79kFood & Nutrition$66kEducation$37kRecreation & Sports$27kHousing & Shelter$17kPhilanthropy$12kInternational$3k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$5,700
Median grant
5
States reached
$108k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
COLFAX COMMUNITY NETWORK$5,700
CHILDRENS HUNGER PROGRAM$5,700
BLESSINGS IN A BACKPACK$5,700
SECOND WIND FUND$5,700
SUNSHINE ON A RANNEY DAY$5,700
CAMP TWIN LAKES$5,700
THE DAISY PROJECT$5,700
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:

Your human-services grants (FY20–21, $18k) land where the poverty rate runs at 5%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%A PRECIOUS CHILD: $12k → 5%A PRECIOUS CHILD: $6k → 5%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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$325k · 13 repeat orgs$3k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +36% since the first grant, against +17% for the ones you funded once.

13 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
1

Total granted

$325k
$3k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+36%
+17%

Still filing today

54%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthInternationalRecreation & SportsYouth DevelopmentEducationOther

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

  • SO
    SUNSHINE ON A RANNEY DAY INCORPORATED
    4× · 2020–2025 · $28k · revenue +97%
  • CT
    CAMP TWIN LAKES INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $27k · revenue +38%
  • AP
    A PRECIOUS CHILD INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $18k · revenue +36%

Funded once

  • HF
    H2O FOR LIFE
    one grant, 2020 · $3k · revenue +17%

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

04Your field

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.

1
Connections for Life

Empowering people with disabilities by providing services that promote independence, equality and intergration, enhancing their quality of life.

Health
2
Homeward Bound Inc

Providing innovative and life-enriching services for children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities.

Human Services
3
Curesearch for Children's Cancer

Curesearch's mission is to fund & support targeted & innovative cancer research with measurable results, & to be the authoritative source of information & resources for all those affected by children's cancer. see schedule o for…

Health
4
Children's Cancer Connection

Connecting families affected by childhood cancer by providing opportunities that encourage relationships and strengthen community.

5
Summit Community Care Clinic Inc

Provide exceptional, integrated, patient-centered health care services designed to meet the needs of all patients, particularly those who experience barriers to accessing care, regardless of their ability to pay.

Health
6
Children's Healthcare of Atlanta Inc

To make kids better today and healthier tomorrow.

Health
7
Choices Coordinated Care Solutions Inc

To strengthen youth and families while enhancing systems and communities.

Human Services
8
Springwell Inc

Springwell helps individuals improve their quality of life and reduce their need for residential care by helping them access community resources. springwell works with individuals directly as well as with government agencies, health…

Human Services
9
Springboard Collaborative

Springboard collaborative combines targeted student instruction with parent training in an incentivized system that closes the literacy gap, by transferring the summer from a barrier into a springboard for financially disadvantaged…

Human Services
10
Arbor Research Collaborative for Health

Arbor research collaborative for health is committed to improving patient care through research that shapes medical policies and practice. in particular, arbor research conducts health outcomes research on chronic disease and end-stage…

Health
11
Abilitypath

Empower people with special needs to achieve their full potential through innovative, inclusive programs and community partnerships.

Employment
12
United Way of the Csra Inc

United way of the csra mobilizes the caring power of our community to make lasting change on the issues that matter most in our region. we want to ensure that children, young adults, and families have the tools and resources they need to…

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Colorado Gives Foundation and the most unlike its peers is The Good Samaritan Health Center 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 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. 9 of the 15 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

THE DAISY PROJECT — $45,735 · OtherTHE DAISY PROJECTCOMMUNITY FIRST — $37,027 · OtherCOMMUNITY FIRSTCHILDRENS HUNGER PROGRAM — $21,985 · OtherCHILDRENS HUNGER PROGRAMNANAS HOUSE INC — $21,750 · OtherNANAS HOUSE INCNEW YORK SAYS THANK YOU — $20,250 · OtherNEW YORK SAYS THANK YOUEDIN — $14,750 · OtherEDINBLESSINGS IN A BACKPACK INC — $43,735 · Human ServicesBLESSINGS IN A BACKP…A PRECIOUS CHILD INC — $18,000 · Human ServicesA PRECIOUS CHILD INCSUNSHINE ON A RANNEY DAY INCORPORATED — $28,478 · HealthSUNSHINE ON A R…THE GOOD SAMARITAN HEALTH CENTER INC — $18,000 · HealthTHE GOOD SAMARI…CAMP TWIN LAKES INC — $26,735 · Recreation & SportsCOLFAX COMMUNITY NETWORK INC — $17,107 · Youth DevelopmentCOLORADO GIVES FOUNDATION — $12,479 · PhilanthropySECOND WIND FUND INC — $10,985 · EducationH2O FOR LIFE — $3,000 · International
Other$161,497Human Services$61,735Health$46,478Recreation & Sports$26,735Youth Development$17,107Philanthropy$12,479Education$10,985International$3,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetBLESSINGS IN A BACKPACK INC — $43,735 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetSUNSHINE ON A RANNEY DAY INCORPORATED — $28,478 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetCAMP TWIN LAKES INC — $26,735 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetA PRECIOUS CHILD INC — $18,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE GOOD SAMARITAN HEALTH CENTER INC — $18,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetCOLFAX COMMUNITY NETWORK INC — $17,107 over 3y, 5.0% of budgetCOLORADO GIVES FOUNDATION — $12,479 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSECOND WIND FUND INC — $10,985 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetH2O FOR LIFE — $3,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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 BLESSINGS IN A BACKPACK INC
  • Who funds SUNSHINE ON A RANNEY DAY INCORPORATED
  • Who funds CAMP TWIN LAKES INC
  • Who funds A PRECIOUS CHILD INC
  • Who funds THE GOOD SAMARITAN HEALTH CENTER INC
  • Who funds COLFAX COMMUNITY NETWORK INC
  • Who funds COLORADO GIVES FOUNDATION
  • Who funds SECOND WIND FUND INC
  • Who funds H2O FOR LIFE

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 FundMA5.3× 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 Leddy 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%your share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 15 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph