· Private foundation
Peters Family Foundation
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k14 grants · $61k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $15k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $73k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MSU Foundation | $73,000 |
| World Food Program | $15,000 |
| Doctors without Boarders | $8,500 |
| Thelma Sadoff Center For the Arts | $7,500 |
| Center for Biological Diversity | $7,500 |
| Partners in Health | $6,000 |
| Summit County Clubhouse | $5,000 |
| Council on Foundations | $4,499 |
| Bard Prison Initiative | $3,000 |
| Equal Justice Initiative | $3,000 |
| Food Bank for NYC | $3,000 |
| Camp Mishawaka | $3,000 |
| Wisconsin Watch | $3,000 |
| United Nations Relief and Works Agency | $2,500 |
| Sahan Journal | $2,500 |
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 human-services grants (FY17–24, $87k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% 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
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.
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 +92% since the first grant, against +31% for the ones you funded once.
35 repeat relationships — 15 still active in FY2024, 20 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k 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
FRIENDS OF THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAM INC7× · 2017–2024 · $87k · revenue +585%
EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE6× · 2018–2024 · $40k · revenue +92%
MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC7× · 2017–2024 · $38k · revenue +98%
Funded once
- WCWISCONSIN CTR FOR INVEST JOURNALISMone grant, 2021 · $10k
- IRInternational Rescue Committee INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $9k · revenue +81%
- VIVEAP Incone grant, 2020 · $9k · revenue -16%
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.
To drive transformational adaptation to protect communities across the country from higher seas, stronger storms, and more frequent flooding.
To develop and promote a carbon dividends framework - based on carbon fees whose revenues are rebated to citizens through dividends - as the most cost-effective, equitable, and politically viable climate solution.
To effectively and efficiently mitigate risks to the reliability and security of the western interconnection's bulk power system.
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
Educational & charitable. to provide legal and scientific information to public interest attorneys and scientists in numerous countries.
To investigate, research, write, publish, present conferences and teach with respect to global, regional, transboundary, and comparative environmental issues and to make the findings from such activities available to the general public; to…
Food & water watch conducts extensive research and public education to ensure the food and water we consume is safe, accessible and sustainably produced. so we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of…
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Alliance for Climate Protection and the most unlike its peers is Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation. 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 33 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% 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.
41 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. 41 of the 56 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 FRIENDS OF THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR HUMANITARIAN OUTREACH AND INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE ↗
- Who funds EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds THE ARAB-AMERICAN FAMILY SUPPORT CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds DIRECT RELIEF ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BARD COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds FOOD BANK FOR NEW YORK CITY ↗
- Who funds THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
- Who funds WCIJ INC ↗
- Who funds Sahan Journal ↗
- Who funds THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds FONDY FOOD PANTRY ↗
- Who funds THELMA SADOFF CENTER FOR THE ARTS INC ↗
- Who funds GLACIAL LAKES CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds CAMP MISHAWAKA ↗
- Who funds SUMMIT COUNTY CLUBHOUSE ↗
- Who funds WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds VEAP Inc ↗
- Who funds Defenders of Wildlife ↗
- Who funds THE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds THE CLEAR FUND ↗
- Who funds THE ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WISCONSIN INC ↗
- Who funds UNRWA USA NATIONAL COMMITTEE INC ↗
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: Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Edward Jones Foundation · Baird Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Peters Family Foundation 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 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.