Skip to content

· Private foundation

Miner-Romanoff 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.

$313k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$150k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

Crime & Legal$303kYouth Development$156kEducation$60kPhilanthropy$10kArts & Culture$5k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $53k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $260k
$50,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$1.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE ARTHUR PROJECT$150,000
Individual grant recipient$60,000
BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF NEW YORK CITY$50,000
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND$20,000
COUNCIL ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE$20,000
VOLUNTEER LAWYERS FOR THE ARTS$12,500
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 (FY23–25, $231k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%THE ARTHUR PROJECT: $150k → 17%THE ARTHUR PROJECT: $56k → 17%THE ARTHUR PROJECT: $25k → 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.
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.

79%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$671k · 4 repeat orgs$175k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +43% since the first grant, against -3% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
4

Total granted

$671k
$75k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+43%
-3%

Still filing today

100%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $100k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
Crime & LegalEducationArts & CultureHuman ServicesCivil RightsOther
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

  • JI
    JUSTICE INNOVATION INC
    2× · 2022–2024 · $275k · revenue +232%
  • TA
    THE ARTHUR PROJECT
    3× · 2023–2025 · $231k · revenue +43%
  • BB
    BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF NEW YORK CITY INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $125k · revenue -6%

Funded once

  • KI
    KORDA INSTITUTE FOR TEACHING
    one grant, 2024 · $50k · revenue -39%
  • PG
    PETEY GREENE PROJECT
    one grant, 2024 · $10k
  • NY
    New York University
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +21%
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
New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault Inc

The alliance leads new york citys mission to end sexual violence through education, prevention programming, research, and policy change. until we end sexual violence in all forms, we will be here for all survivors and the organizations…

Human Services
2
New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project

The new york city gay and lesbian anti-violence project (avp) mission is to empower lgbtq and hiv-affected communities and allies to end all forms of violence through organizing and education, and support survivors through counseling and…

—
3
The Population Council Inc

We generate ideas, produce evidence, and design solutions to improve the lives of underserved populations around the world. we take a multidisciplinary, intergenerational, life-cycle approach that contributes to (see schedule o)four global…

International
4
Jobsfirstnyc

Jobsfirstnyc's mission is to create and advance solutions that break down barriers and transform the systems supporting young adults and their communities in the pursuit of economic opportunities.

Youth Development
5
Women's Law Project

Women's law project creates a more just and equitable society by advancing the rights and status of all women throughout their lives. to this end, we engage in high-impact litigation, advocacy, and education. the core values of women's law…

Civil Rights
6
Legal Outreach Inc

Legal outreach is a college preparatory organization that uses instruction in law as a catalyst for inspiring and motivating youth from under-resourced communities in new york city to strive for academic excellence and higher education.…

—
7
Workforce Professionals Training Institute

Wpti's mission is to build the capacities of people, programs, and organizations that provide job training, placement, and career guidance for individuals and to advocate for policies that promote economic opportunities for all.

Employment
8
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Aajc Inc

The mission of asian americans advancing justice-aajc (aajc) is to advance civil and human rights for asian americans and to build and promote a fair and equitable society for all.

Civil Rights
9
Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services Inc

Cases' mission is to increase public safety through innovative services that reduce crime and incarceration, improve behavioral health, promote recovery and rehabilitation, and create opportunities for success in the community. we believe…

—
10
New York Genome Center Inc

Operate a state-of-the-art, world-class genomic research center that creates and uses advanced genomics to understand the genetic basis of disease. for more information, see schedule o.

Health
11
The Poptech Institute

Poptech's mission is to accelerate the positive impact of world-changing people, projects and ideas. founded in 1996 by bob metcalfe (inventor, ethernet) and john sculley (apple, pepsi), poptech originally provided a forum to critically…

Education
12
Bigs & Littles Nyc Mentoring Inc

Bigs & littles nyc mentoring is a nonprofit community-based organization which transforms the lives of vulnerable nyc children and strengthens families through professionally guided one-to-one mentoring, life skills programming, and…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Big Brothers Big Sisters of New York City Inc; the most unlike its peers is New York University. 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

9 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. 9 of the 11 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
4/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JUSTICE INNOVATION INC: $275,000 · Crime & LegalJUSTICE INNOVATION INCCOUNCIL ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE INC: $20,000 · Crime & LegalCOUNCIL ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE INCTHE ARTHUR PROJECT: $231,265 · Human ServicesTHE ARTHUR PROJECTBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF NEW YORK CITY INC: $125,000 · OtherBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS O…Individual grant recipient: $60,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientPETEY GREENE PROJECT: $10,000 · OtherKORDA INSTITUTE FOR TEACHING: $50,000 · EducationNew York University: $10,000 · EducationVOLUNTEER LAWYERS FOR THE ARTS INC: $40,000 · Arts & CultureHAMPTONS COMMUNITY OUTREACH INC: $5,000 · Arts & CultureLAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND INC: $20,000 · Civil Rights
Crime & Legal$295,000Human Services$231,265Other$195,000Education$60,000Arts & Culture$45,000Civil Rights$20,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetJUSTICE INNOVATION INC: $275,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetTHE ARTHUR PROJECT: $231,265 over 3y, 13% of budgetBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF NEW YORK CITY INC: $125,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetKORDA INSTITUTE FOR TEACHING: $50,000 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetVOLUNTEER LAWYERS FOR THE ARTS INC: $40,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetLAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNew York University: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHAMPTONS COMMUNITY OUTREACH INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO6.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Miner-Romanoff Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Miner-Romanoff Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
    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.

    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 11 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 Miner-Romanoff’s filings →

    More from the funding graph