· Private foundation
Richard and Judith Stern Family 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CHICAGO PSYCHOANALYTIC INSTITUTE | $5,000 |
| NATIONAL WOMENS LAW CENTER | $5,000 |
| JAPAN SOCIETY | $5,000 |
| THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO | $4,000 |
| WORLD WILDLIFE FUND | $3,000 |
| THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE | $3,000 |
| LINCOLN PARK ZOO | $3,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO | $3,000 |
| SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER | $2,500 |
| NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL FOUNDATION | $2,500 |
| UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LABORATORY | $2,500 |
| THE MICHAEL J FOX FOUNDATION FOR | $2,000 |
| SANDY HOOK PROMISE FOUNDATION | $2,000 |
| NEW ISRAEL FUND | $2,000 |
| NEWMAN NATION | $1,500 |
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 (FY20–22, $4k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 49% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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 +26% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
69 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2025, 58 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13k 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
- JUJEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO3× · 2020–2022 · $75k · revenue +13%
- CPCHICAGO PSYCHOANALYTIC INSTITUTE5× · 2021–2025 · $30k · revenue +1%
Rocky Mountain Institute5× · 2020–2025 · $26k · revenue +183%
Funded once
- WJWORLD JEWISH CONGRESS (AMERICAN SECTION) INCone grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue -40%
- GDGEORGETOWN DAY SCHOOLone grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue -7%
PAN-MASSACHUSETTS CHALLENGE INCone grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue +11%
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.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
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;…
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.
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
The committee to protect journalists promotes press freedom worldwide and defends the right of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal. cpj ensures the free flow of news and commentary by taking action wherever…
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Crisis group works to prevent and resolve deadly conflict around the world by informing and influencing the perceptions and actions of policymakers and other key conflict actors. to this end, we endeavour to talk to all sides and provide…
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 council on foreign relations (cfr) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and…
Ilsi is a global, nonprofit federation dedicated to generating and advancing emerging science and groundbreaking research to ensure foods are safe, nutritious and sustainable, and that they improve planetary and human health and well-being…
To enhance both the global competitiveness of u.s. business and the u.s. quality of life by promoting and facilitating voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment systems, and safeguarding their integrity.
See schedule onorc at the university of chicago conducts research and data science on critical societal issues to guide decision-making and the development of programs and public policy. our experts identify relationships and trends, and…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is International Center for Research On Women and the most unlike its peers is Newman Nation. 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 54 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.
62 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. 62 of the 90 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 JEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO PSYCHOANALYTIC INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds Rocky Mountain Institute ↗
- Who funds THE MICHAEL J FOX FOUNDATION FOR PARKINSON'S RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds WORLD JEWISH CONGRESS (AMERICAN SECTION) INC ↗
- Who funds THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds NEW ISRAEL FUND ↗
- Who funds University of Chicago ↗
- Who funds JAPAN SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds PROCTOR ACADEMY ↗
- Who funds GEORGETOWN DAY SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds LINCOLN PARK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds Northwestern University ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN COMMITTEE FOR THE WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE INC ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE ↗
- Who funds PAN-MASSACHUSETTS CHALLENGE INC ↗
- Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds NEWMAN NATION ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds SANDY HOOK PROMISE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON WOMEN ↗
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: John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Richard and Judith Stern 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.
- Feed the Children Inc — 1% of income from government
- Sandy Hook Promise Foundation — 0% of income from government
- Pan-Massachusetts Challenge Inc — 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.