Skip to content
Lenahan Family Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Lenahan Family 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.

$63k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$20k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$233kEducation$38kEnvironment$15kCivil Rights$12kInternational$7kPhilanthropy$3kPublic Safety & Disaster$3kHuman Services$1k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $17k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $47k
$7,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$1.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL$20,000
THE LANTERN FOUNDATION$16,684
CHALLENGE ASPEN$10,000
GIVING GREEN RESEARCH GROUP INC$7,000
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS$4,000
AMERICAN NEAR EAST REFUGEE AID$4,000
HYPERTROPHIC CARDIOMYOPATHY ASSOCIATION$1,685
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY21–25, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CHALLENGE ASPEN: $20k → 6%CHALLENGE ASPEN: $10k → 6%CHALLENGE ASPEN: $10k → 6%CHALLENGE ASPEN: $10k → 6%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
NY
MA
OR
NJ
CA
CO
AZ
DC
FL
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

74%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$227k · 7 repeat orgs$81k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
8

Total granted

$227k
$57k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-14%
0%

Still filing today

71%
88%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 63% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $24k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationEnvironmentHuman ServicesHealthInternationalCivil RightsOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • MG
    MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED
    5× · 2017–2025 · $105k
  • CA
    CHALLENGE ASPEN
    4× · 2021–2025 · $50k · revenue +45%
  • BW
    BRIGHAM WOMEN'S HOSPITAL
    2× · 2020–2021 · $34k

Funded once

  • BABY BLUES CONNECTION
    one grant, 2024 · $20k · revenue -24%
  • SC
    SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
    one grant, 2021 · $11k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +3%
How this is measured

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

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
2
Climate Catalyst Inc

Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.

Environment
3
The Climate Cousins Foundation
—
4
The Climate Group Inc

Climate group advances climate action by mobilizing business and government leadership to drive systemic decarbonization across energy, transport, and industry, while engaging the public through large-scale convenings and global platforms.…

Environment
5
Climate Foundation

To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.

Science & Tech
6
Climate Central Inc

Climate central, inc. (the organization") is an independent not-for-profit organization of leading scientists, technology experts and communication professionals that are dedicated to researching and reporting on climate change and its…

Science & Tech
7
Watttime Corporation

To raise awareness about the potential to reduce environmental harm by shifting electricity use to particular times; to encourage the development and spread of common protocols for this practice.

Science & Tech
8
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
9
The Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions

Our mission is to strengthen and sustain our global environment for future generations by expanding economic freedom and accelerating free enterprise innovation.

—
10
Brighter Green Inc

Brighter green is a public policy action tank that works to raise awareness of and encourage policy action that span the environment, animals, and sustainability. based in new york, brighter green works in the u.s. and internationally with…

Environment
11
Conservation Law Foundation Inc

Conservation law foundation, inc. (clf) protects new england's environment for the benefit of all people and future generations. we use the law, science, and markets to create solutions that preserve and restore our natural resources,…

Environment
12
Climate Equity Action Fund

The climate equity action fund (ceaf) works hand-in-hand with community-based partners in critical states across the country to secure and sustain policy wins for climate and clean energy. building on over a decade of trust with leading…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is California Community Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Baby Blues Connection. 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

14 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 14 of the 18 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
4/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED: $105,381 · OtherMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATEDBRIGHAM WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: $34,000 · OtherBRIGHAM WOMEN'S HOSPITALSEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: $11,000 · OtherSEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL+1 more: $1,000 · OtherCHALLENGE ASPEN: $50,000 · Human ServicesCHALLENGE ASPENWhale Foundation Inc: $5,000 · Human ServicesWhale Foundation IncTHE LANTERN FOUNDATION INC: $16,684 · EducationTHE LANTERN F…EFFECTIVE VENTURES FOUNDATION USA INC: $11,000 · EducationEFFECTIVE VEN…UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $10,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF…BABY BLUES CONNECTION: $19,502 · HealthBABY BLUES…HYPERTROPHIC CARDIOMYOPATHY ASSOCIATION: $8,563 · HealthHYPERTROPH…Giving Green Research Group Inc: $7,000 · EnvironmentCLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC: $4,000 · EnvironmentEVERGREEN COLLABORATIVE: $4,000 · EnvironmentTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC: $12,000 · Civil RightsAMERICAN NEAR EAST REFUGEE AID: $6,500 · InternationalWORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $2,500 · InternationalCALIFORNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $3,000 · Philanthropy
Other$151,381Human Services$55,000Education$37,684Health$28,065Environment$15,000Civil Rights$12,000International$9,000Philanthropy$3,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10k$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCHALLENGE ASPEN: $50,000 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetBABY BLUES CONNECTION: $19,502 over 1y, 11% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC: $12,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetEFFECTIVE VENTURES FOUNDATION USA INC: $11,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHYPERTROPHIC CARDIOMYOPATHY ASSOCIATION: $8,563 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetAMERICAN NEAR EAST REFUGEE AID: $6,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWhale Foundation Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetCLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC: $4,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEVERGREEN COLLABORATIVE: $4,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCALIFORNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetASPEN COMPASSION ADVENTURES INC: $1,000 over 1y, 14% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO5.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Lenahan Family Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Lenahan Family Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    4get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 18 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its 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.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Lenahan Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home