· Private foundation
The Cecily & David Murphy Majerus 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k22 grants · $100k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $35k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Environmental Resource Center | $15,000 |
| Resurrection Project | $10,000 |
| Ocean Conservancy | $10,000 |
| Neighboorhood Villages | $7,500 |
| Ellis Early Learning | $7,500 |
| New Directions | $7,000 |
| Everytown for Gun Safety | $7,000 |
| Community Help in Park Slope | $6,000 |
| National Immigration Law Center | $5,000 |
| Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition | $5,000 |
| N Street Village | $5,000 |
| Friendship Place | $5,000 |
| Brennan Center | $5,000 |
| Camp Friendship | $4,667 |
| High Mighty Therapeutic Riding | $4,667 |
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 (FY18–25, $40k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 91% 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.
27 repeat relationships — 17 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 61% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $52k 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
- NDNEW DIRECTIONS INC8× · 2018–2025 · $59k · revenue +58%
EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND INC7× · 2019–2025 · $53k · revenue +10%- FPFriendship Place8× · 2018–2025 · $53k · revenue +120%
Funded once
- CCCARLETON COLLEGEgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue +26%
- LILutheran Immigration Refuge Serone grant, 2021 · $10k
BOSTON HEALTH CARE FOR THE HOMELESS PROGRAM INCgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $8k · revenue +54%
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.
To drive transformational adaptation to protect communities across the country from higher seas, stronger storms, and more frequent flooding.
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
See schedule onorc at the university of chicago conducts research and data science on critical societal issues to guide decision-making and the development of programs and public policy. our experts identify relationships and trends, and…
Council for court excellence's (cce's) mission is to bring people together to conduct research, educate, and advocate to make d.c.'s unique legal systems more just, equitable, and accountable to the community.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Ceres is a nonprofit advocacy organization working to accelerate the transition to a cleaner, more just, and resilient world. through education and research, we make the business case for action on the most pressing sustainability…
To develop and promote a carbon dividends framework - based on carbon fees whose revenues are rebated to citizens through dividends - as the most cost-effective, equitable, and politically viable climate solution.
Building a movement of diverse, upwardly mobile college grads overcoming underemployment through digital skills and peer connections.
Arbor research collaborative for health is committed to improving patient care through research that shapes medical policies and practice. in particular, arbor research conducts health outcomes research on chronic disease and end-stage…
Food & water watch conducts extensive research and public education to ensure the food and water we consume is safe, accessible and sustainably produced. so we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of…
U.s. digital response is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that helps governments, nonprofits, and public entities respond quickly to critical public needs. the organization serves the public by leveraging a network of pro bono…
Women donors network advances a just, equitable, and sustainable world through the power of philanthropy, women's leadership, and collective and individual action.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Camp Friendship Inc and the most unlike its peers is Ccai Adoptive Parents Council. 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 32 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% 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.
54 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. 54 of the 77 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 NEW DIRECTIONS INC ↗
- Who funds EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Friendship Place ↗
- Who funds OCEAN CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds The Resurrection Project ↗
- Who funds REDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds The YMCA of Metropolitan Chicago ↗
- Who funds STRIDES FOR PEACE INC ↗
- Who funds GLIDE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION ↗
- Who funds CAMP FRIENDSHIP INC ↗
- Who funds DEMOCRACY WORKS INC ↗
- Who funds Transformca dba Transform ↗
- Who funds GULF COAST KID'S HOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds Farm to Pantry ↗
- Who funds CARLETON COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds High & Mighty Therapeutic Riding ↗
- Who funds THE WASSAIC PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition ↗
- Who funds NEIGHBORHOOD VILLAGES INC ↗
- Who funds BOSTON HEALTH CARE FOR THE HOMELESS PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds ELLIS EARLY LEARNING INC ↗
- Who funds NOVA UKRAINE ↗
- Who funds FUND TEXAS CHOICE ↗
- Who funds THE GREEN-WOOD CEMETERY ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY HELP IN PARK SLOPE INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds COVENANT HOUSE NEW ORLEANS ↗
- Who funds N STREET VILLAGE INC ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO COALITION TO END HOMELESSNESS ↗
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: Impactassetsinc · The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund · The Annenberg Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Arthur J Gallagher Foundation · The Ayco Charitable Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Jewish Communal 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 organization The Cecily & David Murphy Majerus 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.
- Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service Inc Dba Global Refuge — 100% of income from government
- Neighborhood Villages Inc — 33% of income from government
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- Ellis Early Learning Inc — 20% of income from government
- Gulf Coast Kid's House Inc — 16% of income from government
- Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program Inc — 8% 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 Cecily & David Murphy Majerus Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Cecily & David Murphy Majerus Foundation 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.