· Private foundation
The Casey & Family Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
Read this first · the figures below need context
64% of The Casey & Family Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Boston Foundation Inc, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 8 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2024, the last year The Casey & Family Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 10 organizations, $2M. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $1k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $160k
- $50k–250k10 grants · $900k
- $250k+1 grant · $1.0M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $1,000,000 |
| NEW VENTURE FUND | $220,000 |
| TIDES CENTER PROJECT | $110,000 |
| HEAD COUNT INC | $100,000 |
| GLOBAL GREENGRANTS FUND | $100,000 |
| SOUTHERN VISION ALLIANCE | $75,000 |
| FOCUS FOR DEMOCRACY FUND | $75,000 |
| GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL | $70,000 |
| SILVERLINING | $50,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $50,000 |
| CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| PROTEUS FUND | $40,000 |
| INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK | $40,000 |
| TRUSTEES OF TUFTS COLLEGE | $30,000 |
| GROUNDSWELL INTERNATIONAL | $30,000 |
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 (FY19–23, $715k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 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 +54% since the first grant, against +7% for the ones you funded once.
26 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 17 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call). Read against FY2024, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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 FY2025, 21% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3.7M 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
MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC5× · 2017–2021 · $1.0M · revenue +98%- SSILVERLINING5× · 2020–2024 · $550k · revenue +198%
CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION INC8× · 2017–2024 · $500k · revenue +113%
Funded once
- MFMIT FUNDone grant, 2023 · $15M
- TVTHE VELMA FUNDone grant, 2023 · $15M
- PIPRIME IMPACT FUNDone grant, 2018 · $1.0M
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 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.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Common future is a network of pioneering leaders across the u.s. and canada who work deeply within their communities to create alternative approaches to business, philanthropy, and investing. we envision an economy that has transitioned…
To drive transformational adaptation to protect communities across the country from higher seas, stronger storms, and more frequent flooding.
Our mission is to invest in and accelerate the development of the most promising future leaders in biomedical research with global impact.
Using legal advocacy to make advances in science and technology safer for people and the planet.
The global impact investing network, inc. is dedicated to increasing the scale and effectiveness of impact investing to solve systemic problems facing people and the planet. impact investments are investments made into companies,…
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
Environment next supports individuals, nonprofits and businesses around the world on solutions to complex climate issues. we provide leadership, outreach and communication support, grants, and investments to empower leaders and their ideas…
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…
Upturn advances equity and justice in the design, governance, and use of technology.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Prime Coalition Inc and the most unlike its peers is Indigenous Environmental Network. 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 21 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 16% of your grantees by number, and just 9% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% 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.
47 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. 47 of the 70 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 Boston Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds THE US CHARITABLE GIFT TRUST ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds EFFECTIVE INSTITUTIONS PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds CAMBRIDGE IN AMERICA ↗
- Who funds SILVERLINING ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR APPLIED RATIONALITY ↗
- Who funds PRIME COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds SENTINEL BIO INC ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC CITIZEN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICANS FOR OXFORD INC ↗
- Who funds PROTEUS FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Trustees of Tufts College ↗
- Who funds Groundswell International Inc ↗
- Who funds DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HOPEWELL FUND ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL GREENGRANTS FUND ↗
- Who funds INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK ↗
- Who funds RURAL ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION INTERNATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS INC ↗
- Who funds EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds BERKELEY EXISTENTIAL RISK INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds HEALTH CARE WITHOUT HARM ↗
- Who funds THE INNOCENCE PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds PINK FUND 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: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Boston Foundation Inc · Impactassetsinc · Rsf Social Finance Inc · Founders Pledge Inc · Good Ventures Foundation · Daffy Charitable Fund · The Schmidt Family Foundation · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Greater Kansas City Community Foundation · WK Kellogg 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 Casey & 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Boston 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.