Skip to content

· Public charity

Organization of Teratology Information Specialists

Dedicated to providing evidence-based information to parents, healthcare professionals, and the general public about medications and other exposures during pregnancy and while breastfeeding.

$796k
Granted FY2024still arriving
12
Grants FY2024still arriving
11
States reached
$116k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$5.4MEducation$749k
02FY2024 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $62k
  • $50k–250k10 grants · $727k
$69,750
Median grant
11
States reached
$1.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
University of California San Diego$115,891
MH MISSION HOSPITAL$81,637
University of North Texas$79,000
University of TX Health Science Ctr$74,900
University of Nebraska Medical Cent$70,050
Emory University$69,750
University of South Florida$63,137
University of Connecticut Health Ce$58,225
State of Utah$58,000
University of Rochester$56,750
University of Arizona$47,300
Genesis Foundation for Children$14,824
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 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 71% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: $88k → 15%GENESIS FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN: $71k → 16%University of California San Diego: $116k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: $76k → 14%FERRE INSTITUTE INC: $53k → 20%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $92k → 8%MISSION HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $77k → 12%STATE OF UTAH: $73k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: $53k → 15%GENESIS FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN: $56k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO: $109k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: $67k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $88k → 8%MISSION HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $74k → 12%STATE OF UTAH: $69k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: $52k → 15%GENESIS FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN: $53k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO: $97k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: $66k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $81k → 8%MISSION HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $73k → 12%State of Utah: $69k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: $51k → 15%GENESIS FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN: $52k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO: $85k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: $60k → 14%University of North Texas: $79k → 8%MISSION HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $72k → 12%STATE OF UTAH: $68k → 8%Genesis Foundation for Children: $51k → 16%University of California San Diego: $85k → 11%University of Rochester: $57k → 14%University of North Texas: $79k → 8%MISSION HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $62k → 12%STATE OF UTAH: $67k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO: $83k → 11%University of Rochester: $53k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $78k → 8%MH MISSION HOSPITAL: $82k → 12%STATE OF UTAH: $59k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO: $80k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: $53k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $77k → 8%MISSION HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $53k → 12%State of Utah: $58k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO: $79k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $72k → 8%MH MISSION HOSPITAL: $74k → 12%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

NY
MA
CT
CA
UT
NE
AZ
NC
GA
TX
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$6.1M · 14 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
0

Total granted

$6.1M
$0

Still filing today

36%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationHealthOther
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

  • EU
    Emory University
    8× · 2017–2024 · $494k · revenue +80%
  • UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER
    8× · 2017–2024 · $471k · revenue +81%
  • TN
    The Nebraska Medical Center
    8× · 2017–2024 · $461k · revenue +125%

Funded once

    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
    04the grantee network

    6 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. 6 of the 14 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.

    1
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    0
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    5/6
    Grantees still filing
    3/6
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN DIEGO: $732,868 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN DIEGOUNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $646,345 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXASSTATE OF UTAH GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $512,140 · OtherSTATE OF UTAH GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON: $491,950 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTONUNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER: $474,890 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTERUNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: $430,491 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF ARIZONATHE GENESIS FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN: $389,501 · OtherTHE GENESIS FOUNDATION FOR CHILDRENMH MISSION HOSPITAL: $300,815 · OtherMH MISSION HOSPITALMISSION HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION INC: $265,500 · OtherMISSION HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION INCUNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA: $250,440 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDAEmory University: $493,840 · EducationEmory UniversityUNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: $470,590 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF ROC…The Nebraska Medical Center: $461,240 · HealthThe Nebraska…Ferre Institute Inc: $219,500 · HealthFerre Instit…
    Other$4,494,940Education$964,430Health$680,740

    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 budgetEmory University: $493,840 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: $470,590 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetThe Nebraska Medical Center: $461,240 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetTHE GENESIS FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN: $389,501 over 8y, 8.7% of budgetMISSION HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION INC: $265,500 over 4y, 39% of budgetFerre Institute Inc: $219,500 over 5y, 10% 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.

    • Who funds Emory University ↗
    • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER ↗
    • Who funds The Nebraska Medical Center ↗
    • Who funds THE GENESIS FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN ↗
    • Who funds MISSION HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION INC ↗
    • Who funds Ferre Institute Inc ↗

    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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

    Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA4.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: 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 Organization of Teratology Information Specialists funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Organization of Teratology Information Specialists. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 10%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      1get 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 · 0–15%
      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 Organization of Teratology Information Specialists?

      Find your warmest path to Organization of Teratology Information Specialists 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 14 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 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 Organization of Teratology Information Specialists’ filings →

      More from the funding graph