· Private foundation
Mark and Mary Ellen Stinski 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
100% of Mark and Mary Ellen Stinski Foundation’s FY2023 grant dollars went to Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2023 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2021, the last year Mark and Mary Ellen Stinski Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 7 organizations, $94k. 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 FY2017–2023.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2021
- Under $10k9 grants · $29k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $65k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PARTNERS IN HEALTH | $20,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $20,000 |
| CONNECT BEND | $15,000 |
| RED CLOUD INDIAN SCHOOL | $10,000 |
| NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY | $5,000 |
| THE LAND INSTITUTE | $5,000 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| OSTPH INCORPORATED | $5,000 |
| SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER | $1,000 |
| YUMA JAPANESE GARDENS | $1,000 |
| PUBLIC CITIZEN | $1,000 |
| RIVER RD AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSEUM | $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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–18, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% 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.
60 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2021, 49 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call). Read against FY2021, 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 FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION4× · 2017–2021 · $120k · revenue +120%
MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC4× · 2017–2020 · $75k · revenue +98%- PCPUBLIC CITIZEN INC5× · 2017–2021 · $17k · revenue +35%
Funded once
- TLTHE LAKOTA FUND INCORPORATEDgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $15k · revenue +605%
- HTHOLY TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCHone grant, 2017 · $5k
- HFHABITAT FOR HUMANITYone grant, 2017 · $5k
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.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
RA works at the intersection of business, agriculture & forests to improve lives & protect nature by transforming how land is used, production of goods & consumer choices.
See schedule o for a more detailed description of ide's mission statement and achievements.
A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
Iatp works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.
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…
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
To investigate, research, write, publish, present conferences and teach with respect to global, regional, transboundary, and comparative environmental issues and to make the findings from such activities available to the general public; to…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Amnesty International of the Usa Inc and the most unlike its peers is Soar. 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 40 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% 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.
42 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. 42 of the 79 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 FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC CITIZEN INC ↗
- Who funds THE LAKOTA FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds Community Food Bank Inc ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds The Land Institute ↗
- Who funds Habitat for Humanity Tucson Inc ↗
- Who funds THE CARTER CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds ELDER SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds SEARCH FOR COMMON GROUND ↗
- Who funds WOMEN FOR WOMEN INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds OXFAM-AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds SOAR ↗
- Who funds CHALLENGED ATHLETES INC ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE ↗
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: Community Foundation of Johnson County · Community Foundation for Southern Arizona · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Mark and Mary Ellen Stinski 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.
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 0% of income from government
- Oxfam-America 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.