· Private foundation
Philip M Friedmann Family Charitable Trust Dtd 11/09/98
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
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 45% of PHILIP M FRIEDMANN FAMILY CHARITABLE TRUST DTD 11/09/98’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 1 grants below total $7 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,517,922 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,517,915 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Donation via MREP Global VI LP | $7 |
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 +26% since the first grant, against +19% for the ones you funded once.
99 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2024, 99 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, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7 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
- TSTHE SELFHELP HOME INC3× · 2020–2023 · $217k · revenue +8%
GREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY4× · 2020–2023 · $175k · revenue +17%
SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER INC3× · 2020–2022 · $156k · revenue +102%
Funded once
- RURush University Medical Centergraduatedone grant, 2020 · $75k · revenue +30%
- CCATOone grant, 2021 · $75k
- SWSimon Wiesenthal Centerone grant, 2023 · $60k
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.
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.
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…
To provide accurate, objective information and analysis on international strategic issues for legislators, diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business leaders, economists, the military, defense commentators, journalists,…
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…
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.
Help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.
The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.
Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.
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.
At the internet society foundation, we focus on funding initiatives that strengthen the internet in function and reach so that it can effectively serve all people. our work advances the vision of the internet society (isoc): the internet…
The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Heritage Foundation 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 42 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.8% lost their exemption, against 12% 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.
129 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. 129 of the 231 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY ↗
- Who funds THE SELFHELP HOME INC ↗
- Who funds GREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY ↗
- Who funds SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Hudson Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds Foundation for Neurologic Diseases Inc ↗
- Who funds MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER ↗
- Who funds CATO INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Big Shoulders Fund ↗
- Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH INC ↗
- Who funds Rush University Medical Center ↗
- Who funds THE FUND FOR AMERICAN STUDIES ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds Leadership Institute ↗
- Who funds DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER ↗
- Who funds Institute for Humane Studies ↗
- Who funds THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds Francis W Parker School ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds TURNING POINT USA INC ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR ENRICHED LIVING 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: The Chicago Community Trust · Donors Trust Inc · Farrell Family Foundation · Bradley Impact Fund Inc · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · Circle of Service Foundation · The Dupage Community Foundation · United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · Red Bird Hollow Foundation · Elizabeth Morse Charitable Trust Xxxxx1008 · The Wilson Sexton Foundation · Sarah Scaife Foundation Incorporated
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Philip M Friedmann Family Charitable Trust Dtd 11/09/98?
Find your warmest path to Philip M Friedmann Family Charitable Trust Dtd 11/09/98 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.