Skip to content
Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network at a glance

· Public charity

Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network

The mission of spartan is to foster research and education in spondyloarthritis in the united states.

$310k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$100k
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, FY2019 to 2024.

Health$395k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $300,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $310,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $10,000 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $100k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $200k
$25,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$3.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON$100,000
THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA$50,000
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA$50,000
OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY$25,000
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON$25,000
BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL$25,000
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA$25,000
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 (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 79% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: $25k → 16%THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $50k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO: $5k → 10%NYU GROSSMAN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: $10k → 17%THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON: $100k → 16%OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY: $25k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: $10k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $25k → 9%THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL CORPORATION: $10k → 16%THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $25k → 10%THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON: $25k → 16%OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY: $25k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: $10k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $25k → 9%UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: $10k → 16%THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON: $25k → 16%OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY: $10k → 12%BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $140k → 16%OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY: $10k → 12%BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $10k → 16%BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $10k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
NY
MA
OR
PA
CT
CA
CO
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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$450k · 5 repeat orgs$225k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +34% since the first grant, against +21% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
6

Total granted

$450k
$75k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+21%

Still filing today

20%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $150k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationHealthOther
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

  • TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY
    3× · 2020–2022 · $160k · revenue +34%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON
    3× · 2023–2025 · $150k
  • OH
    OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY
    4× · 2022–2025 · $70k

Funded once

  • VO
    VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING LESS THAN 5001
    one grant, 2019 · $30k
  • CH
    Children's Hospital Corporation
    one grant, 2024 · $10k · revenue +13%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
    one grant, 2021 · $10k
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

6 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. 6 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
6/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $160,000 · OtherTRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON: $150,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTONREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $75,000 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAOREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY: $70,000 · OtherOREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM: $50,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAMUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $50,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTONVARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING LESS THAN 5001: $30,000 · OtherMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED: $25,000 · Other+2 more: $30,000 · OtherYale University: $20,000 · EducationNew York University: $10,000 · EducationUniversity of San Francisco: $5,000 · EducationChildren's Hospital Corporation: $10,000 · HealthTHE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Health
Other$640,000Education$35,000Health$20,000

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $160,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetYale University: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetChildren's Hospital Corporation: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNew York University: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of San Francisco: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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 TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds Yale University ↗
  • Who funds Children's Hospital Corporation ↗
  • Who funds THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds New York University ↗
  • Who funds University of San Francisco ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Trustees of Boston University: 12% of income from government
  • Yale University: 12% of income from government
  • Children's Hospital Corporation: 10% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
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 Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network?

Find your warmest path to Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network’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