· Private foundation
Michael & Donna Kaplan Foundation
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 FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k77 grants · $127k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $77k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| The Nature Conservancy | $25,000 |
| Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaboration | $25,000 |
| Greater Twin Cities United Way | $16,000 |
| Jewish Family And Children's Services | $10,800 |
| Salvation Army | $9,377 |
| Second Harvest Heartland | $8,000 |
| Anti-Defamation League | $8,000 |
| Interfaith Outreach Community Partners | $6,325 |
| Minnesota Zoo Foundation | $6,120 |
| Food Group | $6,000 |
| NorthPoint Health and Wellness Center | $5,600 |
| Community Emergency Assistance Programs (CEAP) | $4,725 |
| UNICEF | $4,000 |
| American Red Cross | $4,000 |
| Catholic Charities | $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 (FY22–25, $90k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 98% 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 +28% since the first grant, against +5% for the ones you funded once.
92 repeat relationships — 74 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, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $14k 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
- BIBEACON INTERFAITH HOUSING COLLABORATIVE4× · 2022–2025 · $80k · revenue +51%
- IOINTERFAITH OUTREACH AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS4× · 2022–2025 · $27k · revenue +29%
- ALANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE5× · 2017–2025 · $27k · revenue +78%
Funded once
- BIBeacon Interfaith Housing Collaborationone grant, 2017 · $2k
- TCThe Conservation Allianceone grant, 2023 · $2k
- UGUnion Gospel Mission-Food Shelter & Careone grant, 2022 · $2k
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.
Iatp works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.
We champion the health needs of children and families. we are committed to improving children's health by providing the highest-quality, family centered care, advanced through research and education.
Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…
(msh) saves lives and improves the health of the world's poorest (see schedule o) and most vulnerable people by closing the gap between knowledge and action in public health.
Shape and drive bold policy solutions to achieve equitable carbon-neutral economies.
The minnesota business partnership's mission is to maintain a high quality of life for all minnesotans by ensuring that the state's economy remains strong, globally competitive and its prospects for growth bright by working with elected…
To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.
The alliance is a coalition of community-based organizations and advocacy groups with a mission to build power across the intersections of geography, race, culture, and issues in the twin cities region to eliminate systems of oppression…
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
University of minnesota physicians serves as the integrated group practice for the university of minnesota medical school full-time faculty to provide the highest quality healthcare to patients and their families.university of minnesota…
The mission of the global alliance for improved nutrition (gain) is to improve the consumption of healthier diets for all, especially the most vulnerable, by improving the availability, affordability, desirability, and sustainability of…
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Feed My Starving Children Inc and the most unlike its peers is Wildlife Conservation Society. 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 47 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 17% 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 10% 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.
82 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 82 of the 140 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 BEACON INTERFAITH HOUSING COLLABORATIVE ↗
- Who funds GREATER TWIN CITIES UNITED WAY ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds JEWISH FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICE OF MINNEAPOLIS ↗
- Who funds INTERFAITH OUTREACH AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds SECOND HARVEST HEARTLAND ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF ↗
- Who funds FOOD GROUP MINNESOTA INC THE ↗
- Who funds COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS INC ↗
- Who funds ST LOUIS PARK EMERGENCY PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds Youthprise ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds MINNEAPOLIS JEWISH FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds NECHAMA - JEWISH RESPONSE TO DISASTER ↗
- Who funds Save The Children Federation Inc ↗
- Who funds PEOPLE SERVING PEOPLE INC ↗
- Who funds SIMPSON HOUSING SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds MINNESOTA ZOO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CLIMATE GENERATION ↗
- Who funds NorthPoint Health and Wellness Center Inc ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds SHARING AND CARING HANDS INC ↗
- Who funds CANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds PACER CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds GREATER MINNEAPOLIS CRISIS NURSERY ↗
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 Minneapolis Foundation · Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation · Otto Bremer Trust · The Richard M Schulze Family Foundation · Pohlad Family Foundation · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Margaret a Cargill Foundation · Xcel Energy Foundation · Greater Twin Cities United Way · Target Foundation · Ch Robinson Worldwide Foundation · Hunger Solutions Minnesota
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 Michael & Donna Kaplan 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.
- Christopher Reeve Foundation — 49% of income from government
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- Epilepsy Foundation of America — 22% of income from government
- The National Federation of the Blind — 2% of income from government
- Feed the Children Inc — 1% of income from government
- Wounded Warrior Project 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 Michael & Donna Kaplan Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Michael & Donna Kaplan Foundation 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.