· Private foundation
Loeb 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k52 grants · $82k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $108k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MISERICORDIA | $25,250 |
| MMRF | $22,300 |
| LOYOLA ACADEMY | $10,000 |
| YELLOWSTONE CLUB COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| PROVIDENCE | $10,000 |
| NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO | $10,000 |
| TURNING POINT ACTION | $6,500 |
| SAINT FAITH HOPE AND CHARITY CATHOLIC CHURCH | $6,000 |
| NSCI | $5,750 |
| BIG SKY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION | $5,000 |
| TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY | $5,000 |
| DANIEL'S TABLE | $4,000 |
| NORTHWESTERN | $3,000 |
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 (FY20–25, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 67% 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 +30% since the first grant, against +8% for the ones you funded once.
70 repeat relationships — 38 still active in FY2025, 32 since wound down; 17 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, 78% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $39k 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
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON COLLEGE2× · 2021–2024 · $43k · revenue +26%- MIMary Institute and St Louis Country Day School7× · 2019–2025 · $16k · revenue +96%
- JUJEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO4× · 2022–2025 · $11k · revenue +30%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2022 · $5k
MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INCone grant, 2023 · $5k · revenue +1%- CJCHICAGO JESUIT ACADEMYone grant, 2022 · $4k
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.
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
See schedule onorc at the university of chicago conducts research and data science on critical societal issues to guide decision-making and the development of programs and public policy. our experts identify relationships and trends, and…
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,…
Help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.
Engage actively and continuously in medical research, education and training in the practice of medicine in conjunction with the department of family medicine of the indiana university school of medicine and indiana university…
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…
The common application is a not-for-profit membership organization of over 1,100 colleges and universities across the globe committed to access, equity, and integrity in the college admission process. every year, over 1.5 million students…
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.
The Academy's mission is to enhance member career fulfillment and promote brain health for all.
Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Empower Illinois and the most unlike its peers is Samaritan's Purse. 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 35 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 — 1% 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.
92 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. 92 of the 164 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 YELLOWSTONE CLUB COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF BOSTON COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds Mary Institute and St Louis Country Day School ↗
- Who funds APBD RESEARCH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds JEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds THE MICRODREAMS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds REAL CLEAR FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CITY ACADEMY INC ↗
- Who funds CAMP NEBAGAMON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BIG SKY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION ↗
- Who funds GREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY ↗
- Who funds ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE & RELATED DISORDERS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds Cristo Rey St Martin College Prep ↗
- Who funds HOPE IGNITES CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HAITI EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds America First Legal 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: Bradley Impact Fund Inc · The Chicago Community Trust · Donors Trust Inc · Helen V Brach Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Baird Foundation Inc · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · The Dunn Foundation · The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund · AbbVie Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
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 Loeb Family Foundation Inc 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.
- Charles River Community Health Inc — 20% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- North Coast Land Conservancy Inc — 6% of income from government
- Best Buddies International Inc — 4% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston College — 3% of income from government
- The Bottom Line Inc — 0% of income from government
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 0% of income from government
- Boston Foundation Inc — 0% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Loeb Family Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Loeb Family Foundation Inc 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.