· Public charity
Raising A Reader
Raising a Reader supports families and inspires the development of literacy skills and a lifelong love for reading.
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.
The 1 grants below total $24,423 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $279,251 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $254,828 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 |
|---|---|
| Raising A Reader Massachusetts | $24,423 |
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 (FY17–20, $65k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, 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.
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.
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.
By advocating for quality early care and education, empowering families with information and financial support, and building the capabilities of educators, Children's Council of San Francisco ensures that every child in San Francisco has…
At catalyst family, inc., we believe that strong families build strong communities. we are committed to nurturing vibrant communities where children thrive and families succeed, creating lasting change.
Kidworks inspires purpose in youth, fuels their growth, and catalyzes their impact in the community and the world.
Empowering diverse communities in california's central valley.
To support the educational, social and emotional development of children, ages 0-5, by providing high quality, comprehensive and family-focused early childhood services in partnership with the community.
To advance educational equity. together with families, schools and the community, facilitate access to and opportunities for quality educational and wellness practices so that children thrive from diapers to diplomas.
Child lane provides care in an environment where play is valued and children are supported to reach their full potential.
The center for early education, a socio-economically and culturally diverse independent school for children, toddlers through grade six, strives to graduate students who are joyful, resilient, lifelong learners. the center embraces a…
Promotion and advancement of children's health through patient care, research, and education.
The mission of the california children and families foundation is to promote, support, and improve the health and early development of children, from the prenatal stage through five years of age.
Sierra Nevada Children's Services enhances the community by supporting quality childcare and empowering families to aspire to life-long success.
Ees' mission is to provide a unique and affordable child development program designed to meet the social, emotional, physical, and educational needs of the individual child, as we strengthen and preserve the family and all who influence…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Options for Learning and the most unlike its peers is Open Door Community Health Centers. 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 43 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 11% 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.
33 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.
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.
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: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · The Family Giving Tree · Share Our Strength · Project Lead the Way Inc · Los Angeles Universal Preschool · Project Lead the Way Inc · GenYOUTH Incorporated · Good Sports Inc · The San Francisco Foundation · Save the Music Foundation · Action for Healthy Kids · The Albertsons Companies 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 Raising A Reader 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.
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.