Skip to content
No 33 the 1994 Christopher W Johnson Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

No 33 the 1994 Christopher W Johnson Charitable Trust

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.

$853k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$323k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$1.9MHealth$1.2MRecreation & Sports$600kSocial Science$600kAnimals$304kPublic Safety & Disaster$175kInternational$150kPhilanthropy$25kOther$0
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $130k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $400k
  • $250k+1 grant · $323k
$30,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$263k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SUCCESS ACADEMY$323,000
THE JOHNSON CENTER FOR CHILD HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT$200,000
ASPEN VALLEY SKI & SNOWBOARD CLUB$100,000
OPEN TO DEBATE FOUNDATION$100,000
MOUNTAIN RESCUE ASPEN$30,000
THE CHAPIN SCHOOL LTD$25,000
ANIMAL RESCUE FUND OF THE HAMPTONS INC$25,000
COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS$25,000
THE SATO PROJECT$25,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 81% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ANIMAL RESCUE FUND OF THE HAMPTONS INC: $29k → 7%OPEN TO DEBATE FOUNDATION: $100k → 17%THE SATO PROJECT: $25k → 20%THE JOHNSON CENTER FOR CHILD HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT: $200k → 10%ASPEN VALLEY SKI & SNOWBOARD CLUB: $100k → 6%MATTHEW FRIEDMAN MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: $25k → 6%ANIMAL RESCUE FUND OF THE HAMPTONS INC: $25k → 7%OPEN TO DEBATE FOUNDATION: $100k → 17%THE SATO PROJECT: $25k → 20%THE JOHNSON CENTER FOR CHILD HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT: $200k → 10%ASPEN VALLEY SKI & SNOWBOARD CLUB: $100k → 6%ANIMAL RESCUE FUND OF THE HAMPTONS INC: $25k → 7%INTELLIGENCE SQUARED US FOUNDATION: $100k → 17%THE SATO PROJECT: $25k → 20%THE JOHNSON CENTER FOR CHILD HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT: $200k → 10%ASPEN VALLEY SKI & SNOWBOARD CLUB: $100k → 6%ANIMAL RESCUE FUND OF THE HAMPTONS INC: $25k → 7%INTELLIGENCE SQUARED US FOUNDATION: $100k → 17%THE SATO PROJECT: $25k → 20%THE JOHNSON CENTER FOR CHILD HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT: $200k → 10%ASPEN VALLEY SKI & SNOWBOARD CLUB: $100k → 6%ANIMAL RESCUE FUND OF THE HAMPTONS INC: $25k → 7%INTELLIGENCE SQUARED US FOUNDATION: $100k → 17%THE SATO PROJECT: $25k → 20%THE JOHNSON CENTER FOR CHILD HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT: $200k → 10%ASPEN VALLEY SKI & SNOWBOARD CLUB: $100k → 6%ANIMAL RESCUE FUND OF THE HAMPTONS INC: $25k → 7%INTELLIGENCE SQUARED US FOUNDATION: $100k → 17%THE SATO PROJECT: $25k → 20%THE JOHNSON CENTER FOR CHILD HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT: $200k → 10%ASPEN VALLEY SKI & SNOWBOARD CLUB: $100k → 6%THE CHAPIN SCHOOL LTD: $25k → 17%MOUNTAIN RESCUE ASPEN: $30k → 6%THE CHAPIN SCHOOL LTD: $25k → 17%MOUNTAIN RESCUE ASPEN: $30k → 6%THE CHAPIN SCHOOL LTD: $25k → 17%MOUNTAIN RESCUE ASPEN: $30k → 6%THE CHAPIN SCHOOL LTD: $25k → 17%MOUNTAIN RESCUE ASPEN: $30k → 6%THE CHAPIN SCHOOL LTD: $25k → 17%MOUNTAIN RESCUE ASPEN: $30k → 6%THE CHAPIN SCHOOL LTD: $25k → 17%SUCCESS ACADEMY: $400k → 17%SUCCESS ACADEMY: $389k → 17%SUCCESS ACADEMY: $323k → 17%SUCCESS ACADEMY: $288k → 17%SUCCESS ACADEMY: $230k → 17%SUCCESS ACADEMY: $169k → 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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.0M · 9 repeat orgs$45k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
2

Total granted

$5.0M
$45k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+57%
+202%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’20’21’22’23’24
EducationPublic Safety & DisasterAnimalsRecreation & SportsSocial ScienceInternationalOther
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

  • SA
    SUCCESS ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOLS - NYC
    6× · 2017–2024 · $1.8M · revenue +99%
  • TJ
    The Johnson Center for Child Health & Development Inc
    6× · 2017–2024 · $1.2M · revenue +81%
  • AV
    ASPEN VALLEY SKISNOWBOARD CLUB INC
    6× · 2017–2024 · $600k · revenue +84%

Funded once

  • MF
    Matthew Friedman Memorial Foundation Incgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $25k · revenue +202%
  • NI
    NOURISHNJ INC
    one grant, 2020 · $20k · revenue -18%
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
Foundation for Research of the New York Academy of Osteopathy Inc
—
2
The Ideal School of Manhattan

An independent school providing a comprehensive educational program for children from K through 12th grade.

Education
3
Center for Responsible Science
Philanthropy
4
Abraham and Lillian Rosenberg Foundation
—
5
Rosenberg Foundation
Philanthropy
6
Harvard Club of Ny Historical Foundation
Environment
7
The Charles R Bronfman Prize Foundation
Philanthropy
8
Foreign Policy Research Institute

The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…

International
9
The Rumson Country Day School

The rumson country day school, founded in 1926 as an independent educational institution, seeks; to provide students from all communities with a dynamic, challenging academic experience in a safe and supportive environment; to nourish…

—
10
The Sarah Min and Matt Pincus Foundation
Philanthropy
11
Aspen Rhoads Research Foundation Inc

To support personal & professional development of nutrition researchers throughout their careers.

Health
12
Columbia University Press

Enhance Columbia University's education mission by acquiring and publishing outstanding original works by scholars and others that contribute to an understanding of global human concerns. Columbia University Press became part of the…

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Open to Debate Foundation; the most unlike its peers is The Johnson Center for Child Health & Development 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
10/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SUCCESS ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOLS - NYC: $1,799,153 · EducationSUCCESS ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOLS - NYCTHE CHAPIN SCHOOL LTD: $150,000 · EducationTHE CHAPIN SCHOOL LTDThe Johnson Center for Child Health & Development Inc: $1,200,000 · Public Safety & DisasterThe Johnson Center for Child He…Mountain Rescue Aspen Inc: $175,000 · Public Safety & DisasterMountain Rescue Aspen IncASPEN VALLEY SKISNOWBOARD CLUB INC: $600,000 · Recreation & SportsASPEN VALLEY …OPEN TO DEBATE FOUNDATION: $600,000 · Social ScienceOPEN TO DEBAT…ANIMAL RESCUE FUND OF THE HAMPTONS INC: $154,000 · AnimalsTHE SATO PROJECT: $150,000 · AnimalsCOUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS INC: $150,000 · InternationalMatthew Friedman Memorial Foundation Inc: $25,000 · HealthNOURISHNJ INC: $20,000 · Food & Nutrition
Education$1,949,153Public Safety & Disaster$1,375,000Recreation & Sports$600,000Social Science$600,000Animals$304,000International$150,000Health$25,000Food & Nutrition$20,000

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 budgetSUCCESS ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOLS - NYC: $1,799,153 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetThe Johnson Center for Child Health & Development Inc: $1,200,000 over 6y, 22% of budgetASPEN VALLEY SKISNOWBOARD CLUB INC: $600,000 over 6y, 2.0% of budgetOPEN TO DEBATE FOUNDATION: $600,000 over 6y, 5.6% of budgetMountain Rescue Aspen Inc: $175,000 over 6y, 6.6% of budgetANIMAL RESCUE FUND OF THE HAMPTONS INC: $154,000 over 6y, 0.7% of budgetTHE SATO PROJECT: $150,000 over 6y, 1.3% of budgetTHE CHAPIN SCHOOL LTD: $150,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetCOUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS INC: $150,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetMatthew Friedman Memorial Foundation Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetNOURISHNJ INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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 Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO5.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 No 33 the 1994 Christopher W Johnson Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from No 33 the 1994 Christopher W Johnson Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →median 27%
  • Nourishnj Inc: 27% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
3report 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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to No 33 the 1994 Christopher W Johnson Charitable Trust?

Find your warmest path to No 33 the 1994 Christopher W Johnson Charitable Trust 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 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on No 33 the 1994 Christopher W Johnson’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