· Private foundation
The Apatow-Mann Family Foundation Inc
Its FY2024 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 FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k65 grants · $178k
- $10k–50k24 grants · $277k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| TEEN CANCER AMERICA | $27,000 |
| THE UCLA FOUNDATION | $20,000 |
| THE HAWKINS PROJECT | $15,000 |
| BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENC | $15,000 |
| THE RAPE FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| 826 Boston | $10,000 |
| GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY | $10,000 |
| Save The Children | $10,000 |
| NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL | $10,000 |
| THE JOHNS HOPKINS SCHOOL OF MEDICIN | $10,000 |
| Care for the Homeless | $10,000 |
| SHELTER PARTNERSHIP INC | $10,000 |
| 826 NYC | $10,000 |
| 826 CHI | $10,000 |
| VICTIMS FIRST | $10,000 |
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 (FY17–24, $494k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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 +47% since the first grant, against +34% for the ones you funded once.
130 repeat relationships — 85 still active in FY2024, 45 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $11k 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
- HHHomeless Health Care Los Angeles8× · 2017–2024 · $88k · revenue +357%
- MPMOTION PICTURE AND TELEVISION FUND8× · 2017–2024 · $85k · revenue +77%
- RIREFUGEPOINT INC8× · 2017–2024 · $85k · revenue +277%
Funded once
- CSCROSSROADS SCHOOL FOR ARTS AND SCIENCESone grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +24%
- MAMUSEUM ASSOCIATESgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $25k · revenue +89%
- 8I826DC INCone grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue -5%
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.
The foundation's mission is to improve the oral health of all californians by supporting the dental profession and its efforts to meet community needs.
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.
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.
At the internet society foundation, we focus on funding initiatives that strengthen the internet in function and reach so that it can effectively serve all people. our work advances the vision of the internet society (isoc): the internet…
The california dental association is committed to the success of our members in service to their patients and the public.
The mission of the uc davis foundation is to secure, steward and manage private gifts for uc davis.
The san diego foundation inspires enduring philanthropy and enables community solutions to improve the quality of life in our region.
American gas association's (the association) mission is to develop and advocate for informed, innovative, and durable policy that fulfills our nation's energy needs, environmental aspirations and economic potential. we are committed to…
The npr foundation ("foundation") is organized and operated exclusively for the benefit of its sole supported organization, national public radio, inc. ("npr inc."). the foundation supports npr inc. through various activities such as…
The Television Academy is dedicated to celebrating excellence, innovation and the advancement of the telecommunications arts and sciences through recognition, education and leadership, while fostering a diverse, inclusive and accessible…
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,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Defense Fund and the most unlike its peers is The Onyx and Breezy Foundation. 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 30 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
127 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. 127 of the 172 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 TEEN CANCER AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds THE HAWKINS PROJECT ↗
- Who funds FULFILLMENT FUND ↗
- Who funds Homeless Health Care Los Angeles ↗
- Who funds MOTION PICTURE AND TELEVISION FUND ↗
- Who funds REFUGEPOINT INC ↗
- Who funds SHELTER PARTNERSHIP INC ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds CARE FOR THE HOMELESS ↗
- Who funds CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE RAPE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds 826LA ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF ↗
- Who funds Save The Children Federation Inc ↗
- Who funds BABY2BABY ↗
- Who funds 826NYC Inc ↗
- Who funds UCLA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE ↗
- Who funds COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC ↗
- Who funds A PLACE CALLED HOME ↗
- Who funds LITTLEST TUMOR FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Philabundance ↗
- Who funds THE LEARY FIREFIGHTERS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Friends of Firefighters Inc ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds THE MICHAEL J FOX FOUNDATION FOR PARKINSON'S RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds OCEANA INC ↗
- Who funds HILARITY FOR CHARITY INC ↗
- Who funds Children's Hospital Los Angeles ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds 826 BOSTON INC ↗
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: California Community Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · The Hawkins Project · Johnny Carson Foundation · Weingart Foundation · The Katie McGrath & Jj Abrams Family Foundation · The Annenberg Foundation · The Rose Hills Foundation · 826 National Inc · James and Deborah Burrows Foundation · The Marilyn and Jeffrey Katzenberg Foundation · Conrad N Hilton 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 The Apatow-Mann Family 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.
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- City Year Inc — 11% of income from government
- 826 Boston Inc — 3% of income from government
- Boston Foundation Inc — 0% of income from government
- Oxfam-America 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Apatow-Mann Family Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to The Apatow-Mann Family Foundation Inc 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.