Skip to content
S Sydney Deyoung Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

S Sydney Deyoung Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$153k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$30k
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$1.1MScience & Tech$35k
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $3k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $150k
$20,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$365k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$30,000
BRIGHAM & WOMEN'S HOSPITAL$20,000
DANA FARBER CANCER CENTER$20,000
LENOX HILL HOSPITAL$20,000
DR CLARA ABRAHAM CROHN'S DISEASE$20,000
DR CLARA ABRAHAM CHRON'S DISEASE$20,000
PATIENT ADVOCATE FOUNDATION$10,000
JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER$10,000
PARKINSON'S BODY AND MIND$2,500
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 93% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%HARVARD UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH SUPPORT FUND: $10k → 8%ANNE THORNDIKE - OBESITY FOUNDATION: $30k → 16%LENNOX HILL HOSPITAL: $20k → 17%PATIENT ADVOCATE FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%HARVARD UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH SUPPORT FUND: $10k → 8%DR DAFFNER ALZEIMERS DISEASE: $20k → 16%LENNOX HILL HOSPITAL: $20k → 17%PATIENT ADVOCATE FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%HARVARD UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH SUPPORT FUND: $10k → 8%BRIGHAM & WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: $20k → 16%LENNOX HILL HOSPITAL: $20k → 17%PATIENT ADVOCATE FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%HARVARD UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH SUPPORT FUND: $10k → 8%BRIGHAM AND WOMENS: $20k → 16%LENNOX HILL HOSPITAL: $20k → 17%HARVARD UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH SUPPORT FUND: $10k → 8%BRIGHAM AND WOMENS: $20k → 16%LENNOX HILL HOSPITAL: $20k → 17%HARVARD UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH SUPPORT FUND: $10k → 8%BRIGHAM & WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: $20k → 16%LENNOX HILL HOSPITAL: $20k → 17%BRIGHAM & WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: $20k → 16%LENOX HILL HOSPITAL: $20k → 17%BRIGHAM & WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: $20k → 16%LENNOX HILL HOSPITAL: $20k → 17%BRIGHAM AND WOMENS: $20k → 16%DR PETER BUCK FOUNDATION: $10k → 17%BRIGHAM AND WOMENS: $20k → 16%DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE: $20k → 16%DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE: $20k → 16%DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE: $20k → 16%DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE: $20k → 16%GENERAL HOSPITAL CORP MGH CENTER: $50k → 16%DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE: $20k → 16%GENERAL HOSPITAL CORP MGH CENTER: $50k → 16%DANA FARBER CANCER CENTER: $20k → 16%MASS GENERAL HOSPITAL: $20k → 16%JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER: $10k → 16%OBESITY FOUNDATION - ANNE THORNDIKE: $20k → 16%DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE: $10k → 16%OBESITY FOUNDATION - ANNE THORNDIKE: $20k → 16%JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER: $10k → 16%MASS GENERAL HOSPITAL: $20k → 16%JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER: $10k → 16%GENERAL HOSPITAL CORP MGH CENTER: $20k → 16%OBESITY FOUNDATION - ANNE THORNDIKE: $20k → 16%GENERAL HOSPITAL CORP MGH: $20k → 16%GENERAL HOSPITAL CORP MGH: $20k → 16%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.
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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$980k · 11 repeat orgs$108k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
3

Total granted

$980k
$35k

Still filing today

27%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 52% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $73k 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
HealthEducationOther
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

  • MG
    MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED
    8× · 2017–2024 · $160k
  • LH
    LENNOX HILL HOSPITAL
    7× · 2017–2023 · $140k
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc
    7× · 2017–2024 · $130k · revenue +162%

Funded once

  • DD
    DR DAFFNER ALZEIMERS DISEASE
    one grant, 2023 · $20k
  • DP
    DR PETER BUCK FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2021 · $10k
  • NI
    NF INC NEW ENGLAND
    one grant, 2017 · $5k
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
04the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 18 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
1/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED: $160,000 · OtherMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATEDLENNOX HILL HOSPITAL: $140,000 · OtherLENNOX HILL HOSPITALGENERAL HOSPITAL CORP MGH CENTER: $120,000 · OtherGENERAL HOSPITAL CORP MGH CENTERDR CLARA ABRAHAM CHRON'S DISEASE: $100,000 · OtherDR CLARA ABRAHAM CHRON'S DISEASEHARVARD UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH SUPPORT FUND: $60,000 · OtherHARVARD UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH SUPPORT FUNDOBESITY FOUNDATION - ANNE THORNDIKE: $60,000 · OtherOBESITY FOUNDATION - ANNE THORNDIKEMASS GENERAL HOSPITAL: $50,000 · OtherMASS GENERAL HOSPITALGENERAL HOSPITAL CORP MGH: $50,000 · OtherGENERAL HOSPITAL CORP MGHIndividual grant recipient: $30,000 · Other+4 more: $55,000 · Other+4 moreDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $130,000 · HealthDana-Farber Cancer Insti…JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER INC: $80,000 · HealthJOSLIN DIABETES CENTER I…Lenox Hill Hospital: $20,000 · HealthLenox Hill Hospital+1 more: $2,500 · HealthPATIENT ADVOCATE FOUNDATION: $30,000 · Education
Other$825,000Health$232,500Education$30,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $130,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetJOSLIN DIABETES CENTER INC: $80,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetPATIENT ADVOCATE FOUNDATION: $30,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetLenox Hill Hospital: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPARKINSON'S BODY AND MIND INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.7% 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.

  • Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
  • Who funds JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds PATIENT ADVOCATE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Lenox Hill Hospital ↗
  • Who funds PARKINSON'S BODY AND MIND INC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization S Sydney Deyoung Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from S Sydney Deyoung Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 35%
  • Joslin Diabetes Center Inc: 35% of income from government
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
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 S Sydney Deyoung Foundation?

Find your warmest path to S Sydney Deyoung 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 18 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.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on S Sydney Deyoung’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