· Private foundation
Lundbeck US Charitable Fund
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 $10k2 grants · $6k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $115k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $250k
- $250k+3 grants · $1.3M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER | $700,000 |
| AMERICAN HEADACHE SOCIETY | $319,500 |
| ERIE FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS | $250,000 |
| NATIONAL HEADACHE FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| RARE EPILEPSY NETWORK | $100,000 |
| DEPRESSION AND BIPOLAR SUPPORT ALLIANCE | $50,000 |
| KELLIE HOTZ K HOTZ CONSULTING INC | $34,800 |
| DANNY DID FOUNDATION | $30,000 |
| HIDDEN TRUTHS PROJECT | $25,000 |
| PHRMA FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| FAMILY SERVICE CENTER | $5,000 |
| NAMI NATIONAL | $500 |
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 (FY19–25, $97k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 53% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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 +46% since the first grant, against +4% for the ones you funded once.
25 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 18 since wound down; 5 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, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $470k 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
- RURush University Medical Center3× · 2023–2025 · $2.5M · revenue +4%
- SSSTOP SOLDIER SUICIDE INC2× · 2023–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +209%
- EFErie Family Health Center Inc2× · 2024–2025 · $500k · revenue +8%
Funded once
- TATHE ASSISTANCE FUND INCone grant, 2019 · $5.5M · revenue -24%
- HFHealthwell Foundationgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $1.0M · revenue +87%
- HSHEAD STRONG PROJECT INCone grant, 2024 · $500k · revenue +21%
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.
Sfn's mission is to: 1. advance the understanding of the brain and the nervous system by bringing together scientists of all segments of neuroscience, by facilitating the integration of research directed at all levels of biological…
To improve the lives of peoples affected by epilepsy through education, advocacy, research, and connection.
The american psychiatric association (apa) was incorporated in 2000 as a 501(c)(6) trade association. its 38,000 u.s. and international physician members specialize in the diagnosis and treatment of mental health and disorders, including…
Assist banner health complete its mission to make health care easier so life can be better by providing integrated & coordinated care & population health management.
The fsmb serves as the voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best…
As a leading charitable foundation and healthcare advocacy organization, the pan foundation is dedicated to accelerating access to treatment for those who need it most and empowering patients on their healthcare journeys. we provide…
The alliance for aging research is the leading nonprofit organization dedicated to changing the narrative to achieve healthy aging and equitable access to care.
The policy center is improving maternal mental health outcomes through closing gaps in care delivery, including improving detection and access to evidence-based and informed clinical and community-based care. the policy center has been…
Advancing science, education, and careers to improve neurologic health for all.
Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.
Improve the health of every person in our community through the efficient delivery of excellent, innovative and compassionate care.
The chicago psychoanalytic institute transforms the lives of individuals, families and communities, using psychoanalytic knowledge to help them grow and thrive.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Headache Foundation and the most unlike its peers is One Heart for Women and Children 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 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) — 4% 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.
47 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. 47 of the 66 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 THE ASSISTANCE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Rush University Medical Center ↗
- Who funds STOP SOLDIER SUICIDE INC ↗
- Who funds Healthwell Foundation ↗
- Who funds Erie Family Health Center Inc ↗
- Who funds HEAD STRONG PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN HEADACHE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds BUILD INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL HEADACHE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds SEATTLE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds IBIO INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds PERSPECTIVES CHARTER SCHOOLS ↗
- Who funds MENTAL HEALTH AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR DISASTER PHILANTHROPY INC ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO URBAN LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds Community Hope Inc ↗
- Who funds DANNY DID FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE - CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION ↗
- Who funds COALITION FOR HEADACHE AND MIGRAINE PATIENTS ↗
- Who funds THE THRESHOLDS ↗
- Who funds Hidden Truths Project ↗
- Who funds One Heart For Women and Children Inc ↗
- Who funds TREVOR PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds Kids Above All Illinois ↗
- Who funds FEED THE CHILDREN 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: AbbVie Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Arie and Ida Crown Memorial · The Chicago Community Trust · United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Circle of Service Foundation · Northwestern Memorial HealthCare · The Lake County Community Foundation · John and Kathleen Schreiber Foundation D/B/A Schreiber Philanthropy · The Coleman Foundation Inc · Give N Kind
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 Lundbeck US Charitable Fund 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Postpartum Support International — 43% of income from government
- Community Hope Inc — 41% of income from government
- Feed the Children Inc — 1% 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 Lundbeck US Charitable Fund?
Find your warmest path to Lundbeck US Charitable Fund 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.