Skip to content
Richard and Jaci Lindstrom Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Richard and Jaci Lindstrom Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$130k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$130k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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$328kEducation$63kArts & Culture$6kHuman Services$2kPhilanthropy$2kReligion$2k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$130,385
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CORNEA SOCIETY$130,385
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 (FY17–23, $33k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%ASCRS FOUNDATION: $10k → 6%ASCRS FOUNDATION: $10k → 6%ASCRS FOUNDATION: $10k → 6%ASCRS FOUNDATION: $2k → 6%ASCRS FOUNDATION: $1k → 6%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

WA
MN
CA
KY
VA
DC
OK
TX
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.

59%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$237k · 8 repeat orgs$166k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +31% since the first grant, against -22% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
6

Total granted

$237k
$35k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+31%
-22%

Still filing today

88%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $130k 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
HealthCommunity ImprovementEducationHuman ServicesArts & CulturePhilanthropyOther
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

  • S
    SIGHTLIFE
    4× · 2017–2020 · $113k · revenue +5%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION
    6× · 2017–2023 · $63k · revenue +105%
  • AS
    AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY FOUNDATION
    5× · 2017–2023 · $33k · revenue +31%

Funded once

  • EB
    Eye Bank Association of America
    one grant, 2017 · $23k · revenue +25%
  • AG
    AECOS GLOBAL CHARITIES
    one grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue -51%
  • WO
    WINGS OF THE NORTH
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue -22%
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
American Society of Clinical Oncology Inc

See schedule o:asco is a professional oncology society committed to conquering cancer through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality patient care.

Health
2
Retina Society Inc

The society exists to provide educational advancement in ophthalmology.

Health
3
The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology

Arvo advances research worldwide into understanding the visual system and preventing, treating and curing its disorders.

—
4
Asco Association

Asco association promotes the common business interests of its members by: (1) advocating for policies that improve the quality of cancer care; (2) maintaining the highest standards of oncology medical care through programs supporting…

Community Improvement
5
American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Inc

The mission of asoprs is to advance education, research, and the quality of clinical practice in the fields of aesthetic, plastic and reconstructive surgery specializing in the face, orbits, eyelids and lacrimal system.

—
6
Contact Lens Society of America Inc

Promote education, development & professionalism among contact lens fitters & manufacturers.

—
7
American Ophthalmological Society

The mission of the american ophthalmological society is to promote excellence in patient care, education and research, to address essential issues in medicine, and to advance the art and science of ophthalmology.

—
8
World Optometry Foundation
Health
9
American Glaucoma Society Foundation

To support glaucoma research and education, and to promote excellence in the care of patients with glaucoma.

Health
10
American Academy of Optometry Foundation Inc

To develop and provide financial support for optometric research and education.

Health
11
World Council of Optometry Inc

To facilitate the development of optometry around the world and support optometrists in promoting eye health and vision care as a human right through advocacy, education, policy development and humanitarian outreach.

—
12
American Academy of Optometry

To maintain and enhance excellence in optometric practice.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Live It List Foundation. 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

12 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. 12 of the 15 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/12
Grantees still filing
6/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE CORNEA SOCIETY: $130,385 · OtherTHE CORNEA SOCIETYEye Bank Association of America: $22,500 · OtherEye Bank Association of America+5 more: $9,800 · Other+5 moreSIGHTLIFE: $112,500 · Community ImprovementSIGHTLIFEUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION: $63,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF MIN…AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY FOUNDATION: $32,500 · Human ServicesAMERICAN …HOLLAND FOUNDATION FOR SIGHT RESTORATION: $20,000 · HealthLUNG CANCER FOUNDATION OF AMERICA: $3,500 · HealthTHE MINNESOTA EYE FOUNDATION: $1,500 · HealthWINGS OF THE NORTH: $5,000 · Arts & CultureLIVE IT LIST FOUNDATION: $1,800 · Philanthropy
Other$162,685Community Improvement$112,500Education$63,000Human Services$32,500Health$25,000Arts & Culture$5,000Philanthropy$1,800

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE CORNEA SOCIETY: $130,385 over 1y, 7.7% of budgetSIGHTLIFE: $112,500 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION: $63,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN SOCIETY OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY FOUNDATION: $32,500 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetHOLLAND FOUNDATION FOR SIGHT RESTORATION: $20,000 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetAECOS GLOBAL CHARITIES: $5,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetWINGS OF THE NORTH: $5,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetLUNG CANCER FOUNDATION OF AMERICA: $3,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetADOPTION GUILD OF SOUTHERN ORANGE COUNTY: $2,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetLIVE IT LIST FOUNDATION: $1,800 over 2y, 28% of budgetTHE MINNESOTA EYE FOUNDATION: $1,500 over 3y, 3.1% 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.

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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO5.3× affinity6 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Richard and Jaci Lindstrom Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Richard and Jaci Lindstrom Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–5%
    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 Richard and Jaci Lindstrom Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Richard and Jaci Lindstrom Foundation 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 15 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.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2024, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Richard and Jaci Lindstrom’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