· Private foundation
Lisa and David Klaeser Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
Read this first · the figures below need context
96% of Lisa and David Klaeser Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 11 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2023, the last year Lisa and David Klaeser Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 10 organizations, $39k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2023–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| EUREKA SCHOOLS FOUNDATION | $4,000 |
| WEAVE INC | $4,000 |
| THE LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA SOCIETY | $4,000 |
| CUREPSP | $4,000 |
| TRUCKEE DONNER LAND TRUST | $4,000 |
| PLACER COUNTY FOOD BANK | $4,000 |
| PLACER LAND TRUST | $4,000 |
| AUBURN SKI CLUB LEGACY FOUNDATION | $3,000 |
| KIEL EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENT FUND | $2,000 |
| LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN | $2,000 |
| KIEL HIGH SCHOOL BOOSTER CLUB | $2,000 |
| WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC | $1,000 |
| PBS KVIE | $1,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY23–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 3% 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.
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.
11 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2023, 0 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call). Read against FY2023, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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 FY2024, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $8k 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
- CICUREPSP INC2× · 2023–2024 · $8k · revenue +139%
- TDTRUCKEE DONNER LAND TRUST2× · 2023–2024 · $8k · revenue +267%
- WIWEAVE INC2× · 2023–2024 · $8k · revenue +7%
Funded once
- EBEMERALD BRIGADE SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONone grant, 2024 · $3k · revenue +23%
- ASAUBURN SKI CLUB LEGACY FOUNDATIONone grant, 2023 · $3k
- ASAUBURN SKI CLUB ASSOCIATES INCgraduatedone grant, 2024 · $3k · revenue +264%
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.
Our mission is to break down barriers to als research to find effective treatments. by uniting academia, the pharma and biotech industry, government, venture capital, related nonprofits, and the als community, we aim to overcome the…
The ucla foundation is the giving, receiving, and investing arm of the ucla campus. the foundation enables private donors to help build, sustain and advance one of the world's finest academic and research institutions. private philanthropy…
The trust for public land creates parks and protects land for people, ensuring healthy, livable communities for generations to come. in the past year, we helped communities to plan for parks and conservation, fund parks and conservation,…
The mission of the uc davis foundation is to secure, steward and manage private gifts for uc davis.
The mission of the teton regional land trust is to conserve working farms and ranches, fish and wildlife habitat, and scenic open spaces in eastern idaho for this and future generations.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species
To promote the welfare of and advance the objectives of the university of wisconsin-madison by encouraging the interest, engagement, and financial support of alumni, donors, and friends in the life of the university and with each other.
KU Endowment partners with donors in providing philanthropic support to build a greater University of Kansas.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Truckee Donner Land Trust and the most unlike its peers is Curepsp Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 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. 13 of the 17 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 VANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT PROGRAM ↗
- Who funds CUREPSP INC ↗
- Who funds TRUCKEE DONNER LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC ↗
- Who funds WEAVE INC ↗
- Who funds PLACER LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds Eureka Schools Foundation ↗
- Who funds LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN ↗
- Who funds KIEL EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENT FUND INC ↗
- Who funds KIEL BOOSTER CLUB INC ↗
- Who funds EMERALD BRIGADE SUPPORT ORGANIZATION ↗
- Who funds AUBURN SKI CLUB ASSOCIATES INC ↗
- Who funds WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC ↗
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 Blackbaud Giving Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Lisa and David Klaeser 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.