Skip to content
Peter A Morton Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Peter A Morton Foundation Inc

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.

$100k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Education$2.2MEnvironment$376kAnimals$200kScience & Tech$200kArts & Culture$112kHealth$76kCrime & Legal$67kYouth Development$6kOther$0
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$100,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$998
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LACMA$100,000
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 (FY18–20, $60k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%INNOCENT PROJECT: $50k → 17%INNOCENCE PROJECT: $10k → 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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.6M · 11 repeat orgs$59k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
10

Total granted

$1.6M
$59k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+12%
+89%

Still filing today

55%
30%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentYouth DevelopmentHuman ServicesFood & NutritionPhilanthropyEducationOther
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

  • NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC
    3× · 2018–2023 · $200k · revenue +37%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF DENVER
    3× · 2021–2023 · $180k · revenue +12%
  • TI
    THE INNOCENCE PROJECT INC
    2× · 2018–2020 · $60k · revenue +178%

Funded once

  • UH
    UCLA Health System Board
    one grant, 2018 · $10k
  • NB
    NATIONAL BREAST CANCER COALITION (NBCC) FUND
    one grant, 2021 · $10k
  • UV
    UCLA - VISIONARY BALL
    one grant, 2018 · $10k
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
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
2
Project Drawdown

Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…

Education
3
New York University

Nyu is a private university with approximately 60,000 matriculating students in 20 schools and institutes. nyu's primary missions are education, research and scholarship, and patient care.

Education
4
Public Responsibility in Medicine & Research Inc

Prim&r advances the highest ethical standards in the conduct of biomedical, behavioral and social science research. prim&r accomplishes this mission through education, membership services, professional certification, public policy…

Health
5
Trustees of Boston University

Organization's mission: boston university is an international, comprehensive, private research university, committed to educating students to be reflective, resourceful individuals ready to live, adapt, and lead in an interconnected world.…

—
6
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
7
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
8
United States Pharmacopeial Convention

Usp's mission is to improve global health through public standards and related programs that help ensure the quality, safety, and benefit of medicines and foods.

Health
9
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Leadership in the prevention, treatment, and cure of cancer through excellence, vision and cost effectiveness in patient care, outreach programs, research, and education.

Health
10
Cornell University

Education, research, medical services and other public services.

Education
11
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University

Stanford university is one of a select group of american universities that have achieved eminence in both undergraduate and graduate education and research - cont'd sch o.

Education
12
The Trustees of Princeton University

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…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ucla Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Tutwiler Clinc 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

13 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. 13 of the 23 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)
11/13
Grantees still filing
8/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UCLA FOUNDATION: $1,325,000 · EducationUCLA FOUNDATIONUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $250,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAUNIVERSITY OF DENVER: $180,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF DENVERTHE REGENTS AT THE UCLA: $600,000 · OtherTHE REGENTS AT THE UCLAVETPAW INC: $190,000 · OtherVETPAW INCNATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (NRDC): $175,000 · OtherNATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (NRDC)LACMA: $112,000 · OtherLACMA+10 more: $94,001 · Other+10 moreNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $200,000 · Environment+1 more: $1,000 · EnvironmentTHE INNOCENCE PROJECT INC: $60,295 · Human ServicesPROJECT BREAD-THE WALK FOR HUNGER INC: $5,000 · Food & NutritionTHE ORCHID FOUNDATION: $5,000 · PhilanthropyHAROLD ROBINSON FOUNDATION: $1,000 · Youth Development
Education$1,755,000Other$1,171,001Environment$201,000Human Services$60,295Food & Nutrition$5,000Philanthropy$5,000Youth Development$1,000

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 budgetUCLA FOUNDATION: $1,325,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $250,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $200,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetVETPAW INC: $190,000 over 3y, 2.2% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF DENVER: $180,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE INNOCENCE PROJECT INC: $60,295 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetNATIONAL BREAST CANCER COALITION: $20,000 over 2y, 3.6% of budgetTutwiler Clinc Inc: $15,000 over 3y, 15% of budgetTHE RAPE FOUNDATION: $7,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetPROJECT BREAD-THE WALK FOR HUNGER INC: $5,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPECONIC LAND TRUST INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHAROLD ROBINSON FOUNDATION: $1,000 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.

  • Who funds UCLA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
  • Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds VETPAW INC ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF DENVER ↗
  • Who funds THE INNOCENCE PROJECT INC ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL BREAST CANCER COALITION ↗
  • Who funds Tutwiler Clinc Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE RAPE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds PROJECT BREAD-THE WALK FOR HUNGER INC ↗
  • Who funds THE ORCHID FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds PECONIC LAND TRUST INC ↗
  • Who funds HAROLD ROBINSON FOUNDATION ↗

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.

Donor Advised Charita…
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO6.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Peter A Morton Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Peter A Morton Foundation Inc. 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%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report 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.

    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 23 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 Peter A Morton’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