· Private foundation
Lederer 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
- Under $10k19 grants · $85k
- $10k–50k10 grants · $210k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MEDIA DEMOCRACY FUND | $30,000 |
| MOVEMENT VOTER FUND | $30,000 |
| PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT | $30,000 |
| AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION | $29,991 |
| MOVEMENT PROTECTION FUND | $25,000 |
| BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE | $25,000 |
| COLORADO IMMIGRANT RIGHTS COALITION | $10,000 |
| UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS | $10,000 |
| COMMON CAUSE EDUCATION FUND | $10,000 |
| CHINOOK FUND | $10,000 |
| PRO PUBLICA | $5,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS | $5,000 |
| VERIFIED VOTING FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS EDUCATION FUND | $5,000 |
| FAIR FIGHT ACTION CIVIC EDUCATION AND VOTER PROTECTION FUND | $5,000 |
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 (FY17–24, $4k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% 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 +74% since the first grant, against +57% for the ones you funded once.
29 repeat relationships — 18 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 10 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, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $88k 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
- WDWOMEN DONORS NETWORK7× · 2017–2024 · $153k · revenue +276%
PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT7× · 2019–2025 · $100k · revenue +347%
WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC7× · 2019–2025 · $100k · revenue +182%
Funded once
- JAJEFFCO ACTION CENTER INC THE ACTION CENTERone grant, 2024 · $20k · revenue +16%
- TMTIDES MOVEMENT VOTER FUNDone grant, 2024 · $20k
- CCCOMMON CAUSEone grant, 2017 · $5k
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.
Common future is a network of pioneering leaders across the u.s. and canada who work deeply within their communities to create alternative approaches to business, philanthropy, and investing. we envision an economy that has transitioned…
Advance workers rights & social justice through building sustained relationships and taking direct action to create concrete change in the lives of working families
Towards justice is a nonprofit law firm that seeks to advance economic equity and worker power through impact litigation, strategic policy advocacy, and collaboration with organizers and public agencies. we were founded in response to the…
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.
Colorofchange.org works to strengthen the voice of black americans and increase the level of accountability and responsiveness of elected officials to underrepresented black constituencies using the internet as a lobbying and…
To drive transformational adaptation to protect communities across the country from higher seas, stronger storms, and more frequent flooding.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
Fund for Justice is a nationally connected social impact research and advocacy organization that works to achieve fundamental, systemic reform by addressing policies and practicies that prevent individuals from reaching their full…
Powerswitch action is a national network forging collective democracy and economies in our cities and states, together with our 21 grassroots affiliates.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
Alliance for justice builds the strength of progressive movements by training and educating nonprofit organizations on advocacy, while harnessing their collective power to transform our state and federal courts.
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Conservation Colorado Education Fund and the most unlike its peers is Natural Resources Defense Council 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 24 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) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
67 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. 67 of the 80 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 WOMEN DONORS NETWORK ↗
- Who funds PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT ↗
- Who funds WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado ↗
- Who funds THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
- Who funds CHINOOK FUND INC ↗
- Who funds COMMON CAUSE EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE INC ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY NETWORK ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL FUND FOR WOMEN INC ↗
- Who funds New Era Colorado Foundation ↗
- Who funds COLORADO CENTER ON LAW AND POLICY ↗
- Who funds The Center for Media Justice DBA MediaJustice ↗
- Who funds HUNGER FREE COLORADO ↗
- Who funds JEFFCO ACTION CENTER INC THE ACTION CENTER ↗
- Who funds United for A Fair Economy Inc ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION COLORADO EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds COLORADO IMMIGRANT RIGHTS COALITION ↗
- Who funds URGENT ACTION FUND FOR FEMINIST ACTIVISM ↗
- Who funds FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE ↗
- Who funds LATINO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF COLORADO INC ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION COLORADO ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD INC ↗
- Who funds COBALT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PRO PUBLICA INC ↗
- Who funds MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA ↗
- Who funds GREAT EDUCATION COLORADO ↗
- Who funds Rose Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds NEW ISRAEL FUND ↗
- Who funds Verified Voting Foundation ↗
- Who funds VIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC ↗
- Who funds DEMOCRACY FORWARD 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: Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Tides Foundation · Impactassetsinc · New Venture Fund · The Ford Foundation · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Proteus Fund Inc · Rose Community Foundation · The Colorado Health Foundation · The Denver Foundation · The Women's Foundation of Colorado Inc · The Colorado Trust
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 Lederer 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.
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 Lederer Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Lederer Foundation 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.