· Private foundation
Obermayer Foundation Inc
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
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 $10k9 grants · $17k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| REBUILD CONGRESS ISSUE ONE | $25,000 |
| CHAKANA MEDIA INC DBA RECONSIDER | $6,000 |
| INQUIRING SYSTEMS INC | $5,000 |
| MAPS | $1,000 |
| EROWID CENTER | $1,000 |
| CHOCHMAT HALEV | $1,000 |
| OCCIDENTAL ARTS & ECOLOGY CENTER | $1,000 |
| LIMINA FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
| NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LAND TRUST | $500 |
| CIRCLE OF SACRED NATURE | $500 |
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 US giving — 76% of grant dollars ($459k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 24% that went abroad ($147k) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY20–24, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 87% 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
Beyond the US — 24% of all-years giving ($147k)
1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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 +49% since the first grant, against +4% for the ones you funded once.
30 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2025, 22 since wound down; 2 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, 26% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $31k 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
- LBLEO BAECK INSTITUTE INC8× · 2017–2024 · $80k · revenue +198%
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY2× · 2017–2018 · $60k · revenue +45%- JAJEWISH ALLIANCE FOR LAW AND SOCIAL ACTION INC2× · 2017–2018 · $26k · revenue +229%
Funded once
- THTHE HENRY FORDone grant, 2017 · $50k
- JVJEWISH VOCATIONAL SERVICES BOSTONone grant, 2018 · $13k
- BTBEND THE ARC FOR JUSTICEone grant, 2018 · $10k
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.
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.
The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…
Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…
The shalom hartman institute (shi) is a leading research and educational center serving israel and world jewry. we work to enrich the moral and spiritual life of israel and the jewish people, deepen the commitment to pluralism and israel's…
The peterson institute for international economics (piie) is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening prosperity and human welfare in the global economy through expert analysis and practical…
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
Ilsi is a global, nonprofit federation dedicated to generating and advancing emerging science and groundbreaking research to ensure foods are safe, nutritious and sustainable, and that they improve planetary and human health and well-being…
The Jews of Color Initiatives mission is to advance racial equity in the U.S. Jewish community by centering the leadership of Jews of Color and ensuring that our communities and institutions reflect the multiracial reality of the Jewish…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Facing History & Ourselves Inc and the most unlike its peers is LandPaths. 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 34 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% 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 62 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 LEO BAECK INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds JEWISH ALLIANCE FOR LAW AND SOCIAL ACTION INC ↗
- Who funds INQUIRING SYSTEMS INC ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL VENTURE PARTNERS BOSTON INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN JEWISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds Carnegie Mellon University ↗
- Who funds SWARTHMORE COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds CHAKANA MEDIA INC ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL INNOVATION FORUM INC ↗
- Who funds LIMINA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEW ENGLAND HISTORIC GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds REDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds North Bay Organizing Project ↗
- Who funds CHOCHMAT HALEV ↗
- Who funds Occidental Arts and Ecology Center ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds EROWID CENTER ↗
- Who funds COMPASSION & CHOICES ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds SLAVE DWELLING PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds Center for Arms Control and ↗
- Who funds SCIENCE HISTORY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds THE HAROLD GRINSPOON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS FOR PROGRESSIVE ISRAEL ↗
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: Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Inc · Proteus Fund Inc · The San Francisco Foundation · Tides Foundation · Impactassetsinc · West Family Foundation · Jewish Communal Fund · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Boston Foundation Inc · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust
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 Obermayer Foundation Inc 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- Bluehub Capital Inc — 32% of income from government
- More Than Words Inc — 24% of income from government
- Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action Inc — 13% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- Boston Foundation 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.