· Private foundation
Stanley F Goldfein Foundation Inc
Its FY2026 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 FY2020–2026.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2026
- Under $10k71 grants · $91k
- $10k–50k16 grants · $274k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NATURE CONSERVANCY | $25,000 |
| EARTH JUSTICE | $25,000 |
| NRDC | $25,000 |
| EARTHWATCH | $20,000 |
| WWF | $20,000 |
| PROSTATE CANCER FOUNDATION | $20,000 |
| NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY | $18,000 |
| OCEAN CONSERVANCY | $17,000 |
| NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR CANCER RESEARCH | $16,500 |
| UC DAVIS HEALTH CANCER CENTER | $15,000 |
| SUTTER MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION | $15,000 |
| AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION | $14,300 |
| MAYO CLINIC | $11,000 |
| AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY | $11,000 |
| AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH | $11,000 |
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 (FY21–26, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 19% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
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 +7% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
97 repeat relationships — 78 still active in FY2026, 19 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2026 (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 FY2026, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $34k 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
EARTHJUSTICE6× · 2021–2026 · $31k · revenue +49%- TCTHE CARNEGIE HALL CORPORATION6× · 2021–2026 · $24k · revenue +84%
- PCPROSTATE CANCER FOUNDATION5× · 2021–2026 · $24k · revenue +7%
Funded once
- NINATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTERone grant, 2025 · $5k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2022 · $5k
- ILIMMIGRANT LEGAL ADVOCACY PROJECTgraduatedone grant, 2025 · $5k · revenue +145%
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;…
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
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,…
To advance human rights and social justice in the americas.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
We generate ideas, produce evidence, and design solutions to improve the lives of underserved populations around the world. we take a multidisciplinary, intergenerational, life-cycle approach that contributes to (see schedule o)four global…
Operate a state-of-the-art, world-class genomic research center that creates and uses advanced genomics to understand the genetic basis of disease. for more information, see schedule o.
Conservation law foundation, inc. (clf) protects new england's environment for the benefit of all people and future generations. we use the law, science, and markets to create solutions that preserve and restore our natural resources,…
The climate institute is organized for the purpose of educating the general public and policy makers as to the gravity of potential climate change, exploring the policy implications of the latest scientific findings on climate modelling…
To advocate for policy changes by governments and corporations in order to preserve ocean life and return the oceans to their former abundance.
To research and develop centrist policy ideas.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Immigration Law Center and the most unlike its peers is American Museum of Natural History. 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 40 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) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% 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.
84 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 84 of the 143 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 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds THE CARNEGIE HALL CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds PROSTATE CANCER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds OCEAN CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds Nova Southeastern University Inc ↗
- Who funds THE UC DAVIS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SUTTER MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds PRO PUBLICA INC ↗
- Who funds BRIGHTFOCUS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds American Heart Association Inc ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER ↗
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: Community Foundation for Nantucket Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Tides Foundation · AbbVie Foundation · Network for Good · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Stanley F Goldfein Foundation Inc 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.
- Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution — 63% of income from government
- Community Foundation for Nantucket Inc — 10% of income from government
- Reach Out and Read Inc — 9% of income from government
- Brandeis University — 9% of income from government
- Nantucket Dreamland Foundation Inc — 4% of income from government
- Nantucket Conservation Foundation Inc — 4% of income from government
- Nova Southeastern University Inc — 2% of income from government
- Nantucket Book Foundation Inc — 1% of income from government
- Lawyers for Civil Rights Inc — 1% of income from government
- Americares Foundation 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.