Skip to content
Milton a & Charlotte R Kramer Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Milton a & Charlotte R Kramer Charitable 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.

$582k
Granted FY2024still arriving
19
Grants FY2024still arriving
8
States reached
$300k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Philanthropy$1.0MInternational$1.0MArts & Culture$826kEducation$695kPublic Benefit$401kHealth$198kEnvironment$182kCrime & Legal$171kOther$0
02FY2024 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k13 grants · $47k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $85k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $150k
  • $250k+1 grant · $300k
$5,250
Median grant
8
States reached
$6.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TIDES HEALTHY DEMOCRACY FUND$300,000
PALESTINE CHILDRENS RELIEF FUND$150,000
STRAY CAT ALLIANCE$25,000
MEDIA MATTERS$25,000
PUBLIC COUNSEL IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS PROJECT$25,000
WAGMOR PETS$10,000
TGI JUSTICE PROJECT$7,000
POOR MAGAZINE$6,200
COALITION ON HOMELESSNESS$6,000
PROVIDENCE HOUSE$5,250
UNITED INDIANS OF ALL TRIBES FOUNDATION$5,000
CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB$5,000
WESTERN REGIONAL ADVOCACY PROJECT$3,000
Individual grant recipient$3,000
Individual grant recipient$2,000
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 (FY17–24, $68k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 23% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%WESTERN REGIONAL ADVOCACY PROJECT: $5k → 10%WESTERN REGIONAL ADVOCACY PROJECT: $3k → 10%WESTERN REGIONAL ADVOCACY PROJECT: $3k → 10%BOSTON HEALTH CARE FOR THE HOMELESS PROGRAM: $2k → 16%WESTERN REGIONAL ADVOCACY PROJECT: $3k → 10%WESTERN REGIONAL ADVOCACY PROJECT: $3k → 10%CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB: $10k → 9%WESTERN REGIONAL ADVOCACY PROJECT: $2k → 10%CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB: $5k → 9%WESTERN REGIONAL ADVOCACY PROJECT: $2k → 10%CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB: $5k → 9%CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB: $5k → 9%COALITION ON HOMELESSNESS: $6k → 10%BENJAMIN ROSE INSTITUTE ON AGING: $500 → 17%HOSPICE OF THE WESTERN RESERVE: $1k → 17%CLEVELAND SIGHT CENTER: $5k → 17%CLEVELAND SIGHT CENTER: $5k → 17%CLEVELAND SIGHT CENTER: $1k → 17%CLEVELAND SIGHT CENTER: $1k → 17%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MN
IL
MI
NY
MA
OH
PA
CT
RI
CA
CO
VA
MD
DE
AZ
NM
TN
DC
AL
GA
FL
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 14% of Milton a & Charlotte R Kramer Charitable Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Milton a & Charlotte R Kramer Charitable Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 2.4% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

60%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.6M · 61 repeat orgs$1.7M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +59% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.

61 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2024, 51 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

61
71

Total granted

$2.6M
$1.5M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+59%
+26%

Still filing today

70%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 58% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $246k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Arts & CultureHealthHuman ServicesInternationalCivil RightsEnvironmentOther
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

  • MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC
    6× · 2017–2023 · $652k · revenue +98%
  • TS
    THE SANTA FE OPERA
    2× · 2019–2020 · $500k · revenue +38%
  • PUBLIC COUNSEL
    6× · 2017–2022 · $120k · revenue +85%

Funded once

  • CL
    CASE LAW SCHOOL
    one grant, 2021 · $500k
  • SA
    SYRIAN AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $125k · revenue -39%
  • SS
    SHOEMAKER SCHOOL
    one grant, 2023 · $100k
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
Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States Inc

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…

Health
2
Metropolitan Jewish Health System Inc

Mjhs health system is a charitable not-for-profit established to support the activities of affiliated organizations. mjhs is built on the core values of compassion, dignity and respect, first established by the four brooklyn ladies in…

Health
3
National Council of Jewish Women Incorporated

The national council of jewish women is a grassroots nonpartisan organization of volunteers and advocates who strive for social justice by improving the quality of life for women, children and families.

Community Improvement
4
Common Future

Common future is a network of pioneering leaders across the u.s. and canada who work deeply within their communities to create alternative approaches to business, philanthropy, and investing. we envision an economy that has transitioned…

Community Improvement
5
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
6
Salem Health Hospitals & Clinics

To support salem health, salem health west valley and related organizations.

—
7
Union Health System

To serve our communities by provding innovative and compassionate healthcare.

Health
8
Ucsf Foundation Investment Company

The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.

Education
9
Commonwealth Care Alliance Inc

Commonwealth care alliance, inc.'s mission is to improve the health and well-being of people with significant needs by innovating, coordinating and providing the highest quality, individualized care.

Health
10
The Water Research Foundation

The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…

Environment
11
International Aids Vaccine Initiative Inc

A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.

International
12
Network of Jewish Human Service Agencies Inc

The network is an international membership association of more than 170 non profit human service agencies in the united states, canada and israel. its members provide a full range of human services for the jewish community and beyond,…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Policylink; the most unlike its peers is Wagmor Pets. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

110 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. 110 of the 150 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)
19
Early backer (in before they grew)
108/110
Grantees still filing
78/110
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CASE LAW SCHOOL: $500,000 · OtherCASE LAW SCHOOLTIDES HEALTHY DEMOCRACY FUND: $350,000 · OtherTIDES HEALTHY DEMOCRACY FUNDMUSCIAL ARTS ASSOCIATION: $120,000 · OtherSHOEMAKER SCHOOL: $100,000 · Other+95 more: $1,245,698 · Other+95 moreTHE CLEVELAND FOUNDATION: $535,220 · PhilanthropyTHE CLEVELAND FOUNDA…JEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND: $325,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FEDERATION OF…TIDES FOUNDATION: $60,000 · PhilanthropyTIDES FOUNDATION+8 more: $50,250 · PhilanthropyMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $652,000 · InternationalMEDECINS SANS FRO…PALESTINE CHILDREN'S RELIEF FUND: $150,000 · InternationalPALESTINE CHILDRE…+5 more: $37,500 · InternationalTHE SANTA FE OPERA: $500,000 · Arts & CultureTHE SANTA FE OP…FRACTURED ATLAS INC: $50,000 · Arts & CultureFRACTURED ATLAS…POOR MAGAZINE INC: $46,000 · Arts & CulturePOOR MAGAZINE I…The Musical Arts Association: $40,000 · Arts & CultureThe Musical Art…+8 more: $69,000 · Arts & Culture+8 moreSYRIAN AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY FOUNDATION: $125,000 · HealthVanderbilt University Medical Center: $12,500 · HealthSEATTLE INDIAN HEALTH BOARD: $10,000 · HealthPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $10,000 · HealthChildren's Hospital Corporation: $10,000 · Health+7 more: $16,500 · HealthNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $60,000 · EnvironmentTREES FOR THE FUTURE INC: $40,000 · EnvironmentSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $30,000 · EnvironmentCLEVELAND BOTANICAL GARDEN: $12,000 · EnvironmentHIGHLANDER RESEARCH & EDUCATION CENTER INC: $10,000 · Environment+1 more: $3,000 · EnvironmentPUBLIC COUNSEL: $120,000 · Crime & Legal+2 more: $7,000 · Crime & Legal
Other$2,315,698Philanthropy$970,470International$839,500Arts & Culture$705,000Health$184,000Environment$155,000Crime & Legal$127,000

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 budgetMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $652,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetTHE CLEVELAND FOUNDATION: $535,220 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetTHE SANTA FE OPERA: $500,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF CLEVELAND: $325,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetPALESTINE CHILDREN'S RELIEF FUND: $150,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSYRIAN AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY FOUNDATION: $125,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPUBLIC COUNSEL: $120,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $60,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTIDES FOUNDATION: $60,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPOLICYLINK: $60,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetFRACTURED ATLAS INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPOOR MAGAZINE INC: $46,000 over 7y, 2.0% of budgetCOALITION ON HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING IN OHIO: $45,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetTRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $40,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetThe Musical Arts Association: $40,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTREES FOR THE FUTURE INC: $40,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetLOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK: $35,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION: $35,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHISPANIC FEDERATION INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBABY2BABY: $30,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCHIEF SEATTLE CLUB: $25,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR TEEN EMPOWERMENT INC: $25,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetSTRAY CAT ALLIANCE: $25,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetUNITED INDIANS OF ALL TRIBES FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUnited Help Ukraine Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGREATER BOSTON FOOD BANK INC: $25,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWestern Regional Advocacy Project: $21,000 over 7y, 1.1% of budgetCircle Health Services: $21,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetPROVIDENCE HOUSE INC: $20,250 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetNetwork on Women in Prison dba Legal Services for Prisoners w Children: $20,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetEQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWHYHUNGER INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetTHE CLEVELAND PLAY HOUSE: $20,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM BEACH COUNTY INC: $15,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetThe City School: $15,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetLIBERTY HILL FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetVanderbilt University Medical Center: $12,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUnited States Association for UNHCR: $12,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED UKRAINIAN AMERICAN RELIEF COMMITTEE INC: $12,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCLEVELAND SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND: $12,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetCLEVELAND BOTANICAL GARDEN: $12,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetINDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK: $11,300 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetRAD EL DUB COMMUNITY LAND TRUST: $11,000 over 1y, 7.1% of budgetCITYMEALS-ON-WHEELS: $11,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 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.

Emma R Fox Char Trust…The Albert B & Audrey…The Cleveland Foundat…Tides FoundationThe Lozick Family Fou…The Char and Chuck Fo…The Nord Family Found…A Malachi Mixon III &…Jane and Jon Outcalt …Treu Mart FundWillow Redistribution…Tides Center
Emma R Fox Char Trust Mut FdsPA22× affinity8 shared granteesties to 9 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Emma R Fox Char Trust Mut Fds · The Albert B & Audrey G Ratner Family Foundation · The Cleveland Foundation · Tides Foundation · The Lozick Family Foundation · The Char and Chuck Fowler Family Foundation · The Nord Family Foundation · A Malachi Mixon III & Barbara W Mixon Foundation · Jane and Jon Outcalt Foundation · Treu Mart Fund · Willow Redistribution Foundation · Tides Center

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 Milton a & Charlotte R Kramer Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Milton a & Charlotte R Kramer Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 70%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Family Health Center of Worcesterinc: 39% of income from government
  • Greater Boston Food Bank Inc: 22% of income from government
  • Mattapan Community Health Center Inc: 21% of income from government
  • Charles River Community Health Inc: 20% of income from government
  • Trustees of Boston University: 12% of income from government
  • Dothouse Health Inc: 11% of income from government
  • Children's Hospital Corporation: 10% of income from government
  • Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program Inc: 8% of income from government
  • The Center for Teen Empowerment Inc: 7% of income from government
  • Rosie's Place Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
7get no government money at all
26report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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 Milton a & Charlotte R Kramer Charitable Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Milton a & Charlotte R Kramer Charitable 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.

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 150 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Milton a & Charlotte R Kramer’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