Skip to content
The Conrad and Ludmila Cafritz Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

The Conrad and Ludmila Cafritz Charitable Trust

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.

$71k
Granted FY2023
3
Grants FY2023
2
States reached
$50k
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 2023.

Education$120kArts & Culture$119kHealth$55kSocial Science$22kPhilanthropy$20kCommunity Improvement$15kRecreation & Sports$8kHuman Services$5kOther$0
02FY2023 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k1 grant · $1k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $20k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$20,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$174k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
University of Michigan Law School$50,000
St Albans School$20,000
Combined Cathedral Crews Rowing Club$1,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY22–22, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%JFCS of Greater Philadelphia: $3k → 7%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.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$293k · 7 repeat orgs$62k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2023, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
13

Total granted

$293k
$62k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+24%
+33%

Still filing today

57%
62%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
Arts & CultureRecreation & SportsSocial ScienceCivil RightsEducationInternationalOther
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

  • SR
    SOLOMON R GUGGENHEIM FOUNDATION
    2× · 2018–2021 · $57k · revenue +14%
  • JF
    JOHN F KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS
    2× · 2017–2020 · $30k · revenue +115%
  • WW
    WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS
    2× · 2017–2019 · $18k · revenue +24%

Funded once

  • FC
    FEDERAL CITY COUNCILgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $15k · revenue +33%
  • HM
    HIRSHHORN MUSEUM AND SCULPTURE GARDEN
    one grant, 2019 · $10k
  • HA
    HIGHER ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM INC
    one grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue -22%
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
Council of the Americas Inc

Council of the americas is a business organization whose members share a common commitment to economic and social development, open markets, the rule of law, and democracy throughout the americas. the council's membership consists of…

—
2
The George Washington University

The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…

Education
3
Council On Foreign Relations Inc

The council on foreign relations (cfr) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and…

International
4
Corporation of the Washington Latin School

To provide a rigorous, classical education to public school middle and high school students from across the district of columbia.

Education
5
Central Indiana Corporate Partnership Inc

Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…

Community Improvement
6
Harvard Club of Washington Dc

To inform and enrich the intellectual lives of 20,000 alumni of harvard university in the washington, dc area and to assist harvard university with respect to applicants and undergraduates from the dc area.

Education
7
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

Create a more accessible, sustainable, prosperous and livable national capital region by being a discussion forum, expert resource, issue advocate, and catalyst for action.

Public Benefit
8
The Fund for American Studies

The fund for american studies (tfas) seeks to create a brighter, more prosperous future by preparing young people for leadership and teaching them the ideas of freedom and a free-market economy. founded in 1967, tfas organizes programs for…

—
9
Institute for Advanced Study - Louis Bamberger & Mrs Felix Fuld Foundation

The institute for advanced study (the institute) is one of the world's leading centers for theoretical research and intellectual inquiry. see schedule o.

Science & Tech
10
Institute for Experiential Learning Inc

The mission of the washington internship institute is to foster students' intellectual, personal, and professional development through individually tailored, quality internships and challenging academic coursework that take full advantage…

Education
11
Albright College

As a diverse community of learners, we cultivate integrity, curiosity, connection and resilience.

Education
12
Atlantic Council of the United States Inc

The atlantic council, through its research and analysis, promotes constructive leadership and engagement in international affairs based on the central role of the atlantic community in meeting global challenges.

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Greater Washington Community Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Solomon R Guggenheim 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

13 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 13 of the 21 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
11/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CATHEDRAL FOUNDATION OF THE D OF C: $110,000 · OtherPROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CATHEDRAL FOUNDATION OF THE D OF CREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $55,000 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGANPENFAULKER FOUNDATION: $20,000 · OtherPENFAULKER FOUNDATIONFEDERAL CITY COUNCIL: $15,000 · OtherFEDERAL CITY COUNCILHIRSHHORN MUSEUM AND SCULPTURE GARDEN: $10,000 · OtherHIGHER ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM INC: $9,500 · Other+6 more: $11,820 · OtherSOLOMON R GUGGENHEIM FOUNDATION: $57,273 · Arts & CultureSOLOMON R GUGGENHEIM FOUND…JOHN F KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS: $30,000 · Arts & CultureJOHN F KENNEDY CENTER FOR …+1 more: $2,000 · Arts & CultureGREATER WASHINGTON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $20,000 · PhilanthropyWOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS: $18,000 · Social ScienceJUNIOR TENNIS CHAMPIONS CENTER INC: $5,000 · Recreation & SportsCOMBINED CATHEDRAL CREWS ROWING CLUBINC: $2,700 · Recreation & SportsMANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP FOR TOMORROW: $5,000 · EducationMERIDIAN INTERNATIONAL CENTER: $3,500 · International
Other$231,320Arts & Culture$89,273Philanthropy$20,000Social Science$18,000Recreation & Sports$7,700Education$5,000International$3,500

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 budgetSOLOMON R GUGGENHEIM FOUNDATION: $57,273 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetJOHN F KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS: $30,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGREATER WASHINGTON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS: $18,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetHIGHER ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM INC: $9,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP FOR TOMORROW: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJUNIOR TENNIS CHAMPIONS CENTER INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMERIDIAN INTERNATIONAL CENTER: $3,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCOMBINED CATHEDRAL CREWS ROWING CLUBINC: $2,700 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetAMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICE OF GREATER PHILADELPHIA: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE SHAKESPEARE THEATRE: $2,000 over 1y, 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.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO7.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Conrad and Ludmila Cafritz Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Conrad and Ludmila Cafritz Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 21 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record but names no grant recipient in the published copy, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Conrad and Ludmila Cafritz’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