Skip to content
The Charles I and Mary Kaplan Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Charles I and Mary Kaplan 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.

$900k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$900k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Philanthropy$5.5MHealth$11kEducation$4kCrime & Legal$3kCivil Rights$2kPublic Benefit$2k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$900,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$17M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
VANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT PROG$900,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%BOSTON AREA RAPE CRISIS CENTER: $1k → 8%FENWAY HEALTH: $2k → 16%THE TREVOR PROJECT: $1k → 14%SYLVIA RIVERA LAW PROJECT: $1k → 17%DC VOTE: $1k → 14%BOSTON AREA RAPE CRISIS CENTER: $1k → 8%FENWAY HEALTH: $2k → 16%THE TREVOR PROJECT: $1k → 14%SYLVIA RIVERA LAW PROJECT: $1k → 17%DC VOTE: $1k → 14%VANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT PROG: $900k → 16%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WASHINGTON: $2k → 14%VANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT PROG: $800k → 16%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WASHINGTON: $2k → 14%VANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT PROG: $775k → 16%DC RAPE CRISIS CENTER: $1k → 14%VANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT PROG: $675k → 16%DC RAPE CRISIS CENTER: $1k → 14%VANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT PROG: $650k → 16%VANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT PROG: $630k → 16%VANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT PROG: $600k → 16%VANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT PROG: $500k → 16%LGBTQ LEGAL ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS: $500 → 16%LGBTQ LEGAL ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS: $500 → 16%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
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.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.6M · 10 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
0

Total granted

$5.6M
$0

Still filing today

80%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationHealthCivil RightsCrime & LegalOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • PF
    POINT FOUNDATION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $4k · revenue +79%
  • FC
    FENWAY COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $3k · revenue +19%
  • BA
    BOSTON AREA RAPE CRISIS CENTER INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $2k · revenue +39%

Funded once

    How this is measured

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

    04Its field

    Closest unfunded matches

    The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

    1
    Transgender Law Center

    Transgender Law Center TLC changes law, policy and attitudes so that all people can live safely, authentically, and free from discrimination regardless of their gender identity or expression.

    Civil Rights
    2
    Volunteer Lawyers Project of the Boston Bar Association Inc

    The mission of the volunteer lawyers project of the boston bar association is to increase access to justice by delivering high quality pro bono civil legal services to eligible clients in the greater boston area.

    Crime & Legal
    3
    Out & Equal

    To provide leadership and professional development, education and research to create workplaces free from discrimination.

    Social Science
    4
    Brooklyn Community Pride Center Inc

    Brooklyn community pride center uplifts and empowers lgbtq+ brooklynites through socially conscious and culturally responsive programs, partnerships and advocacy.

    Civil Rights
    5
    Gay Men's Health Crisis Inc

    Over 9,000 clients are served by gmhc's programs each year. gmhc provides a broad array of programs through the efforts of clinicians, trained volunteers, and professional staff who identify undiagnosed cases on hiv, ensure access and…

    Health
    6
    Gay City Health Project

    Gay city: seattle's lgbtq center cultivates access and connections to promote self-determination, liberation and joy in our communities.

    Arts & Culture
    7
    Volunteer Legal Advocates

    To advocate for domestic violence victims, at-risk children, and other vulnerable individuals by providing over $22.8m in pro bono legal services, social service referrals, and on-going support; to train and support a strong network of…

    Housing & Shelter
    8
    Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc

    The transgender legal defense and education fund is committed to ending discrimination based on gender identity and expression, and to achieving equality for transgender people through public education, test-case litigation, direct legal…

    —
    9
    National Veterans Legal Services Program Inc

    To provide at no cost legal assistance to veterans of the u.s. armed forces and current service members.

    —
    10
    Human Rights Campaign Foundation

    The human rights campaign foundation is organized for the charitable and educational purposes of promoting public education and welfare for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (lgbtq+) community. the hrc foundation envisions…

    Civil Rights
    11
    Aids Legal Referral Panel of the San Francisco Bay Area

    Our mission is to advance and protect the rights, dignity, and health of people living with hiv/aids in the bay area. continued on schedule owe accomplish this through direct legal representation by one of our staff attorneys, by careful…

    Health
    12
    Equality Florida Action Inc

    Equality florida action is the advocacy arm of the largest civil rights organization working to secure full equality for florida's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (lgbtq) community.(continued on schedule o)we work to pass…

    Civil Rights
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boston Area Rape Crisis Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Point Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
    04the grantee network

    8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

    Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

    How this is measured

    Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 10 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

    Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

    0
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    1
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    8/8
    Grantees still filing
    6/8
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    VANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT PROG: $5,530,000 · OtherVANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT PROG+2 more: $6,000 · OtherPOINT FOUNDATION: $4,000 · EducationCOALITION FOR DC REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS EDUCATION FUND: $2,000 · EducationFENWAY COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC: $3,000 · HealthBOSTON AREA RAPE CRISIS CENTER INC: $2,000 · HealthTREVOR PROJECT INC: $2,000 · Civil RightsGLBTQ LEGAL ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS INC: $1,000 · Civil RightsSylvia Rivera Law Project Inc: $2,000 · Crime & Legal
    Other$5,536,000Education$6,000Health$5,000Civil Rights$3,000Crime & Legal$2,000

    Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

    25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPOINT FOUNDATION: $4,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFENWAY COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC: $3,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBOSTON AREA RAPE CRISIS CENTER INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTREVOR PROJECT INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetDC RAPE CRISIS CENTER: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCOALITION FOR DC REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS EDUCATION FUND: $2,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetGLBTQ LEGAL ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS INC: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budget
    Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

    A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

    Co-funders

    Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

    Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
    Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

    How this is measured
    Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

    How much its grantees rely on government

    Each dot is one organization The Charles I and Mary Kaplan Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Charles I and Mary Kaplan Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 27%
    • Boston Area Rape Crisis Center Inc: 82% of income from government
    • Fenway Community Health Center Inc: 27% of income from government
    • Glbtq Legal Advocates & Defenders Inc: 0% of income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    1rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 10 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Charles I and Mary Kaplan Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home