Skip to content
Marianne J H Witherby Foundation Leiha at a glance

· Private foundation

Marianne J H Witherby Foundation Leiha

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$113k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$20k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Human Services$191kArts & Culture$83kHealth$83kEmployment$48kCommunity Improvement$35kFood & Nutrition$33k
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $33k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $80k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NASSON COMMUNITY CENTER$20,000
REACH BEYOND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE$15,000
FAMILIES FIRST$15,000
TALKING INFORMATION CENTER NETWORK$10,000
BERKLEE COLLEGE OF MUSIC INC$10,000
ROGERSON COMMUNITIES$10,000
BREAD & ROSES$7,500
RIA INC$7,500
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SERVICES$7,500
MAB COMMUNITY SERVICES INC$5,000
CARROLL CENTER FOR THE BLIND$5,000
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 (FY19–25, $53k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%FAMILIES FIRST: $15k → 8%ROGERSON COMMUNITIES: $10k → 16%FAMILIES FIRST PARENTING PROGRAMS INC: $10k → 8%FAMILIES FIRST PARENTING PROGRAMS INC: $10k → 8%ROGERSON COMMUNITIES: $8k → 16%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.
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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$471k · 15 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

15 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
0

Total granted

$471k
$0

Still filing today

67%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthEmploymentEducationFood & NutritionOther
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

  • BC
    BERKLEE COLLEGE OF MUSIC INC
    7× · 2019–2025 · $70k · revenue +31%
  • FF
    FAMILIES FIRST PARENTING PROGRAM INC
    3× · 2019–2025 · $35k · revenue +36%
  • TI
    TALKING INFORMATION CENTER INC
    5× · 2020–2025 · $30k · revenue +8%

Funded once

    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
    Center for Living & Working Inc

    We work to ensure that individuals with disabilities can live independently as equal members of society.

    Human Services
    2
    Coop Careers Inc

    Building a movement of diverse, upwardly mobile college grads overcoming underemployment through digital skills and peer connections.

    Education
    3
    Community Residences Inc

    Housing and programs for persons with intellectual disabilities.

    Human Services
    4
    Work First Inc

    To promote the fullest development of the individual's personal growth, social responsibility, independent living and vocational development. to increase the likelihood that people with disabilities will develop relationships, increase…

    Health
    5
    Riverbrook Residence Inc

    Riverbrook residence is composed of people dedicated to the continuation of the uniquely nurturing community of women with developmental disabilities by creating innovative and genuine opportunities for full and meaningful community…

    Human Services
    6
    Carleton-Willard At Home Inc

    The mission of carleton-willard at home is to bring the excellence and experience of carleton-willard village to seniors in the local communities by providing trustworthy and reliable services and programs that will enhance wellness,…

    Human Services
    7
    Triangle Inc

    Through support, challenge and opportunity, triangle empowers people with disabilities and their families to enjoy rich, fulfilling lives. we are committed to helping the world recognize that we are all people with ability.

    —
    8
    Lifestream Inc

    Lifestream, inc. (the organization") provides community-based services that support individuals in attaining greater independence, promising opportunities, and lives that are meaningful and fulfilling on their own terms.

    Health
    9
    Richmond Residential Services Inc

    Richmond residential services strives to provide person-centered care for individuals with diverse abilities and support needs, facilitating choice, growth and community participation

    Human Services
    10
    The Arc of Bristol County Inc

    To foster community partnerships, promote individual advocacy and create a pathway for growth and innovation by offering exceptional support and services to people with all abilities through the attraction, development and retention of…

    —
    11
    Brookview House Inc

    Brookview's mission is to help homeless and at risk families learn the skills necessary to break the cycle of homelessness and poverty.

    Human Services
    12
    Jewish Vocational Service Inc

    To empower individuals from diverse communities to find employment and build careers, while partnering with employers to hire, develop, and retain productive workforces.

    Employment
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Carroll Center for the Blind Inc; the most unlike its peers is Mab Community Services Inc. 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

    11 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. 11 of the 15 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)
    2
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    10/11
    Grantees still filing
    8/11
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    NASSON COMMUNITY CENTER: $83,000 · OtherNASSON COMMUNITY CENTERTALKING INFORMATION CENTER INC: $30,000 · OtherTALKING INFORMATION CENTER INCCAREER COLLABORATIVE INC: $20,000 · OtherCAREER COLLABORATIVE INCCOMMUNITY WORKSHOP SERVICES: $15,000 · OtherCOMMUNITY WORKSHOP SERVICESRIA INC: $12,500 · OtherRIA INCBREAD AND ROSES: $10,000 · OtherBREAD AND ROSESREACH BEYOND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INC: $75,000 · Human ServicesREACH BEYOND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE…FAMILIES FIRST PARENTING PROGRAM INC: $35,000 · Human ServicesFAMILIES FIRST PARENTING PROGR…ROGERSON COMMUNITIES INC: $17,500 · Human ServicesROGERSON COMMUNITIES INCBERKLEE COLLEGE OF MUSIC INC: $70,000 · EducationBERKLEE COLLEGE …ROGERSON HOUSE INC: $22,500 · HealthROGERSON HOU…THE CARROLL CENTER FOR THE BLIND INC: $20,000 · HealthTHE CARROLL …MAB COMMUNITY SERVICES INC: $10,000 · HealthMAB COMMUNIT…COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS INC: $27,500 · EmploymentBREAD & ROSES INC: $22,500 · Food & Nutrition
    Other$170,500Human Services$127,500Education$70,000Health$52,500Employment$27,500Food & Nutrition$22,500

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

    25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetREACH BEYOND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INC: $75,000 over 5y, 0.6% of budgetBERKLEE COLLEGE OF MUSIC INC: $70,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetFAMILIES FIRST PARENTING PROGRAM INC: $35,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetTALKING INFORMATION CENTER INC: $30,000 over 5y, 2.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY WORKSHOPS INC: $27,500 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetBREAD & ROSES INC: $22,500 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetROGERSON HOUSE INC: $22,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetTHE CARROLL CENTER FOR THE BLIND INC: $20,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCAREER COLLABORATIVE INC: $20,000 over 2y, 3.1% of budgetROGERSON COMMUNITIES INC: $17,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMAB COMMUNITY SERVICES INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% 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.

    The Hamilton Company …Eastern Bank Foundati…Boston Foundation IncEastern Cambridge Fou…Rockland Trust Charit…The Frederick E Weber…Bushrod H Campbell & …Massachusetts Bankers…Highland Street Conne…Cummings Foundation G…The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…
    The Hamilton Company Charitable FoundationMA22× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: The Hamilton Company Charitable Foundation · Eastern Bank Foundation · Boston Foundation Inc · Eastern Cambridge Foundation · Rockland Trust Charitable Foundation Inc · The Frederick E Weber Charities Corp · Bushrod H Campbell & Adah F Hall Charity Fund · Massachusetts Bankers Association Charitable Foundation Inc · Highland Street Connection and Subsidiaries · Cummings Foundation Grants Inc (Fka Oneworld Boston Inc) · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc

    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 Marianne J H Witherby Foundation Leiha funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Marianne J H Witherby Foundation Leiha. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 10%
    • Talking Information Center Inc: 71% of income from government
    • Mab Community Services Inc: 69% of income from government
    • Reach Beyond Domestic Violence Inc: 53% of income from government
    • Community Workshops Inc: 39% of income from government
    • Families First Parenting Program Inc: 10% of income from government
    • Rogerson Communities Inc: 6% of income from government
    • The Carroll Center for the Blind Inc: 3% of income from government
    • Rogerson House Inc: 3% of income from government
    • Berklee College of Music Inc: 1% of income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    3rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Marianne J H Witherby Foundation Leiha?

    Find your warmest path to Marianne J H Witherby Foundation Leiha 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.

    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 15 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 Marianne J H Witherby Foundation Leiha’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