How much did THE BAXT FAMILY FOUNDATION grant in FY2024?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 57% of THE BAXT FAMILY FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.

02FY2024 · 37 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$2,000

Median grant

States reached

$440k

Total assets

Largest grants

LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD$5,000
AMERICAN UNIVERSITYISRAEL STUDIES$3,500
MASON-HILLEL$3,500
AMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE$3,000
COMMUNITY FORKLIFT$3,000
HOUSE OF RUTH$2,500
AJC$2,500
HOPECAM$2,500
EDLAVITCH JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF DC$2,500
FOOD & FRIENDS$2,500
CALVARY WOMEN'S SERVICES$2,500
DC CENTRAL KITCHEN$2,500
INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE$2,500
US HOLOCAUST MUSEUM$2,500
CHARITIES AID FOUNDATION (CAF) BANK$2,500

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $26k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12% — the area typically sits at 9%. 60% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

78%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$413k · 46 repeat orgs$120k to everyone else

46 repeat relationships — 25 still active in FY2024, 21 since wound down; 12 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$413k

$92k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+39%

+48%

Still filing today

59%

32%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $28k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

InternationalEducationHousing & ShelterHealthFood & NutritionCivil RightsOther

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

DC
dc central kitchen
8× · 2017–2024 · $20k · revenue +155%
HO
House of Ruth
8× · 2017–2024 · $18k · revenue +39%
FF
Food & Friends
7× · 2017–2024 · $16k · revenue +139%

Funded once

TW
The Washington School for Girls
one grant, 2023 · $20k · revenue -40%
U
USO
one grant, 2020 · $15k
WS
Wayne State University
one grant, 2020 · $15k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

Jewish Community Relations Council of

Community Improvement

Jews United for Justice Inc

To lead washington and baltimore area jews to act on our shared jewish values by pursuing justice and equity in our local community.

Religion

Jewish Community Foundation of

Philanthropic asset management and grantmaking to both jewish and secular charitable organizations.

Philanthropy

Washington Area Community Investment

To increase equity and economic opportunity by investing knowledge, social, and financial capital in low- and moderate-income washington area entrepreneurs.

—

National Council of Jewish Women

Inspired by jewish values, the national council of jewish women is a grassroots organization of volunteers and advocates who strive for social justice by improving the quality of life for women, children, and families, and by safeguarding…

Community Improvement

United Food Bank

Uniting communities to alleviate hunger.

Food & Nutrition

The District of Columbia Bar Foundation

To fund, support, and improve legal representation of the disadvantaged in the district of columbia.

Crime & Legal

The Jewish Women's Archive Inc

The jewish women's archive is a national organization dedicated to collecting and promoting the extraordinary stories of jewish women. jwa explores the past as a framework for understanding the issues important to women today; inspires…

Arts & Culture

Food & Water Watch

Food & Nutrition

International Women's Forum Inc

We unite our global community to advance women's leadership today and tomorrow.

Education

American Oversight Inc

Civil Rights

Jewish Family and Children's Service

To support people of all backgrounds to reach their full potential.

Human Services

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Jewish World Service Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Michael J Fox 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.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 34 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/37

the rest of the field

10%

1,356/12,964

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.

04the grantee network

36 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

35/36

Grantees still filing

27/36

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$333,215Education$42,800Housing & Shelter$41,500International$38,300Health$27,500Human Services$25,800Civil Rights$24,000

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.

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.

The Morris and Gwendolyn CafritzDC24.3× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz · Greater Washington Community Foundation · Miller & Chevalier Charitable Foundation · John Edward Fowler Memorial Foundation · Dimick Foundation · United Way of the National Capital Area · Walter a Bloedorn Foundation · Nora Roberts Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund

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 organisation THE BAXT 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

3get no government money at all

1rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: George Mason University Hillel.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~15 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 7 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

7 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up +71% since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 522232458 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on George Mason University Hillel, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 15 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 1% of their budget — diversified.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to The Baxt Family Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The Baxt Family Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

THE BAXT FAMILY FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

36 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Baxt Family Foundation?

More from the funding graph

THE BAXT FAMILY FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

36 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Baxt Family Foundation?

More from the funding graph