· Private foundation
The Doll 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.
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 · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $15k
- $10k–50k21 grants · $210k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| LUTHERAN METROPOLITAN MINISTRY | $10,000 |
| GIVING TUCSON (UNITED WAY OF TUCSON AND SOUTHERN ARIZONA) | $10,000 |
| RESOURCE MEDIA | $10,000 |
| BLUE MOUNTAIN CLINIC | $10,000 |
| RAPHAEL HOUSE OF PORTLAND | $10,000 |
| ADELANTE MUJERES | $10,000 |
| OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL | $10,000 |
| LEGAL WORKS INC | $10,000 |
| BRIDGERCARE | $10,000 |
| HEALTHY LAKEWOOD FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| NA'AH ILLAHEE FUND | $10,000 |
| BIRTHING BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITIES | $10,000 |
| OREGON TRADESWOMEN | $10,000 |
| SOUTHEAST SEATTLE EDUCATION CO | $10,000 |
| HAVEN | $10,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $191k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 39% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 +23% since the first grant, against -5% for the ones you funded once.
36 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2025, 22 since wound down; 9 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; $88k 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
- OTOregon Tradeswomen Inc7× · 2017–2025 · $68k · revenue +87%
ADELANTE MUJERES7× · 2017–2025 · $64k · revenue +223%
ROSE HAVEN CIC5× · 2019–2024 · $51k · revenue +303%
Funded once
- PPPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE COLUMBIA WILLAMETTE INCone grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue -15%
- MLMETROPOLITAN LUTHERAN MINISTRYgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $15k · revenue +107%
- OWOhio Womens Allianceone grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue -12%
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 protect and promote every persons right to access the full range of reproductive healthcare choices in Washington State, including safe and legal abortion, through education, advocacy, lobbying and coalition-building
Women's health clinic focusing on helping at-risk parents deal with issues related to prenancy and parenting.
Empowering life-affirming decisions
Ppmw provides high-quality, compassionate healthcare, including reproductive care; promote sexual health; and advocate for reproductive rights and health equity for all.
The Central Ohio Worker Center is a non-profit organization that educates, empowers, and advocates for and with low-wage and immigrant workers in Central Ohio.
To encourage, promote, support, and elect pro-choice women of all political parties to all levels of public office in minnesota.
Our mission is to provide high quality and equitable reproductive and sexual health services, abortion, and education to all people, regardless of any barriers to healthcare that they may face.
The birth center dba lifecycle wellness and birth center is an independent non-profit organization and free-standing, out-of-hospital birth center. our team of midwives and nurse-practitioners provide empowering gynecology and…
Global cleveland is dedicated to growing northeast ohio's economy by welcoming and connecting international people to opportunities and fostering a more inviting community for those seeking a place to call home.
To provide exceptional reproductive and complementary health care services, honest education, and advocacy for all.
To strengthen the capacity of United Ways across Ohio and to advance the common good for Ohioans.
A league of our own is dedicated to finding talented women to run for office and provide them the tools, resources, training, and mentorship to be successful candidates and effective leaders.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Family Promise of Greater Cleveland and the most unlike its peers is Hathaway Brown School. 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 37 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 — 0.0% 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.
50 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. 50 of the 69 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 Oregon Tradeswomen Inc ↗
- Who funds ADELANTE MUJERES ↗
- Who funds ROSE HAVEN CIC ↗
- Who funds BRIDGERCARE ↗
- Who funds PRETERM CLEVELAND INC ↗
- Who funds PRO-CHOICE OREGON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CLEVELAND RAPE CRISIS CENTER ↗
- Who funds Na'ah Illahee Fund ↗
- Who funds RAPHAEL HOUSE OF PORTLAND ↗
- Who funds FAMILY PROMISE OF GREATER CLEVELAND ↗
- Who funds Oregon Environmental Council ↗
- Who funds Front and Centered ↗
- Who funds WOMEN'S VOICES FOR THE EARTH ↗
- Who funds FAMILY PROMISE OF GALLATIN VALLEY INC ↗
- Who funds RESOURCE MEDIA ↗
- Who funds ONE VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WOMEN'S RECOVERY CENTER ↗
- Who funds LUTHERAN METROPOLITAN MINISTRY ↗
- Who funds THRIVE INC ↗
- Who funds Center for Diversity and the Environment ↗
- Who funds Latino Community Fund of Washington State ↗
- Who funds THE HAVEN HOME LLC ↗
- Who funds JOURNEY CENTER FOR SAFETY AND HEALING ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL TO LOCAL HEALTH INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds Healthy Alternatives to Violent Environm ↗
- Who funds LEGAL WORKS INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED LABOR AGENCY INC ↗
- Who funds ABORTION FORWARD ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE COLUMBIA WILLAMETTE INC ↗
- Who funds METROPOLITAN LUTHERAN MINISTRY ↗
- Who funds Ohio Womens Alliance ↗
- Who funds IDEASTREAM ↗
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: The Char and Chuck Fowler Family Foundation · The Cleveland Foundation · The George Gund Foundation · Higley Fund of the Cleveland Foundation · Community West Foundation · The Andrews Foundation · The Reinberger Foundation · Healthcomp Foundation · The Abington Foundation · Murphy Family Foundation · Mt Sinai Health Care Foundation · Woodruff 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 Doll 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.
- Oregon Tradeswomen Inc — 46% of income from government
- Adelante Mujeres — 31% of income from government
- Raphael House of Portland — 10% of income from government
- Planned Parenthood of the Columbia Willamette Inc — 7% of income from government
- Womens Foundation of Oregon — 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Doll Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Doll Family 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.