· Private foundation
The G Harold & Leila y Mathers Charitable Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k6 grants · $37k
- $10k–50k23 grants · $543k
- $50k–250k54 grants · $12M
- $250k+20 grants · $5.1M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY | $277,200 |
| MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY | $270,000 |
| YALE UNIVERSITY | $268,534 |
| CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY | $264,398 |
| LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY | $259,200 |
| CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL CORP (BOSTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL) | $256,184 |
| CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL CORP (BOSTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL) | $253,000 |
| VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER | $252,199 |
| CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY | $250,000 |
| CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION | $250,000 |
| ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY | $250,000 |
| DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE | $250,000 |
| THE WISTAR INSTITUTE | $250,000 |
| WHITE PLAINS HOSPITAL | $250,000 |
| DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE | $250,000 |
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 (FY24–24, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% 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 +41% since the first grant, against +40% for the ones you funded once.
68 repeat relationships — 42 still active in FY2024, 26 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $971k 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
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc8× · 2017–2024 · $8.6M · revenue +132%- CHChildren's Hospital Corporation4× · 2021–2024 · $4.3M · revenue +41%
- CICALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY6× · 2018–2024 · $3.4M · revenue +19%
Funded once
- MIMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYone grant, 2018 · $1.1M
- CFCTR FOR ACADEMIC RESRCH & TRAININGone grant, 2018 · $750k
- CFCENTER FOR ACADEMIC RESEARCH & TRAINING IN ANTHROPOGENYone grant, 2019 · $750k
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.
See Form 990, Part I, Line 1, Description of Organization Mission.
Drexel university fulfills its founder's vision of preparing each new generation of students for productive professional and civic lives while also focusing its collective expertise on solving society's greatest problems. drexel is an…
Education, research, medical services and other public services.
Dartmouth College educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership, through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge.
For more than 125 years, the mission of the johns hopkins hospital has been to lead the world in the diagnosis and treatment of disease and to train tomorrow's great physicians, nurses and scientists. above all, we aim to provide the…
Western new england university, a comprehensive private institution with a tradition of excellence in teaching and scholarship and a commitment to service, awards undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees in various departments from…
We educate the next generation of leaders to improve the health of our society.
Biu produces students who excel in the sciences, humanities, law, engineering, business & the arts.
The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…
The mission of Rush is to improve the health of the individuals and diverse communities we serve through the integration of outstanding patient care, education, research and community partnerships.
The institute for advanced study (the institute) is one of the world's leading centers for theoretical research and intellectual inquiry. see schedule o.
University of minnesota physicians serves as the integrated group practice for the university of minnesota medical school full-time faculty to provide the highest quality healthcare to patients and their families.university of minnesota…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Georgetown University and the most unlike its peers is Post-Garza County Ems. 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 62 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) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 1% 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.
48 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. 48 of the 115 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 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds Children's Hospital Corporation ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ↗
- Who funds WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ↗
- Who funds COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ↗
- Who funds THE WISTAR INSTITUTE OF ANATOMY AND BIOLOGY ↗
- Who funds DUKE UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Vanderbilt University Medical Center ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds New York University ↗
- Who funds Yale University ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds The Salk Institute for Biological Studies ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF BOSTON COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI ↗
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: Montgomery Family Foundation Inc · Kenneth & Harle Montgomery Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 G Harold & Leila y Mathers Charitable 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.
- Joslin Diabetes Center Inc — 35% of income from government
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- Yale University — 12% of income from government
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 11% of income from government
- Children's Hospital Corporation — 10% of income from government
- Brandeis University — 9% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research — 7% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Inc — 6% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston College — 3% 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 G Harold & Leila y Mathers Charitable Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The G Harold & Leila y Mathers Charitable 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.