Skip to content
The Gershen Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Gershen 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.

$84k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$60k
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.

Human Services$345kPhilanthropy$84kHealth$30kHousing & Shelter$28kAnimals$23kEducation$15kEnvironment$15kYouth Development$10kOther$0
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $4k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $20k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
$20,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$276k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND$60,000
UJA-FEDERATION OF NEW YORK$20,000
BIGHORN GOLF CLUB CHARITIES$4,000
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 (FY19–25, $335k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND: $68k → 8%GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND: $62k → 8%GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND: $60k → 8%GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND: $60k → 8%GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND: $60k → 8%GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND: $25k → 8%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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$516k · 7 repeat orgs$37k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +39% since the first grant, against +27% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
8

Total granted

$516k
$37k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+39%
+27%

Still filing today

71%
63%

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
HealthPhilanthropyHuman ServicesAnimalsHousing & ShelterPublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND INC
    7× · 2017–2025 · $345k · revenue +86%
  • UJ
    UNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $40k · revenue +34%
  • SD
    SAN DIEGO RESCUE MISSION INC
    4× · 2019–2022 · $28k · revenue +48%

Funded once

  • GF
    GREENLAW FOUNDATION CORP
    one grant, 2024 · $10k
  • OU
    OPERATION UNDERGROUND RR
    one grant, 2018 · $10k
  • SD
    SAN DIEGO REVER CONSERVATORY
    one grant, 2018 · $5k
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
Sutter Bay Hospitals

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
2
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc

The mission of dfci is to provide expert, compassionate, and equitable care to children, adults, and their families, while advancing the understanding, diagnosis, treatment, cure, and prevention of cancer and related diseases. we train new…

Health
3
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

As a leading academic healthcare organization, our mission is to elevate the health status of the communities we serve.(see schedule o for continuation)(continued)-we deliver exceptional healthcare enhanced by research and education-we…

Health
4
The Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Fdn Group

Susan g. komen 's mission is to save lives by meeting the most critical needs in our communities & investing in breakthrough research to prevent & cure breast cancer.

—
5
The Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Foundation Inc

Susan g. komen has an unmatched, comprehensive 360-degree approach to fighting breast cancer across all fronts and supporting millions of people in the u.s. and in countries worldwide. we advocate for policies to protect patients, drive…

Health
6
Sutter Bay Medical Foundation

Mission statement: mission: caring for our patients first and our people always. vision: to be the most comprehensive, integrated and connected health system for getting and staying well. values: excellence - we deliver high-quality,…

Health
7
Doheny Eye Institute

To further the conservation, improvement and restoration of human eyesight" (mrs. doheny - 1947).

—
8
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Leadership in the prevention, treatment, and cure of cancer through excellence, vision and cost effectiveness in patient care, outreach programs, research, and education.

Health
9
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

Fred hutch cancer center ("fred hutch") unites innovative research and compassionate care to prevent and eliminate cancer and infectious disease. continued on schedule o

Health
10
Beauty Bus Foundation

Beauty bus foundation delivers loving kindness, support and compassion to seriously ill patients and their caregivers through beauty and grooming services.

Health
11
The Johns Hopkins Hospital

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…

Health
12
The San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

To ensure every companion animal has access to quality medical care, compassionate shelter, and a loving home.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is San Diego Fire-Rescue Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Blood Cancer United Inc. 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

10 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. 10 of the 15 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)
10/10
Grantees still filing
8/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND INC: $344,500 · Human ServicesGUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND INCBIGHORN GOLF CLUB CHARITIES INC: $43,800 · PhilanthropyBIGHORN GOLF CLUB…UNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC: $40,000 · PhilanthropyUNITED JEWISH APP…COASTAL GERMAN SHEPARD RESCUE: $20,000 · OtherCOASTAL GERM…NYU FRED SOFFER SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $15,000 · OtherNYU FRED SOF…GREENLAW FOUNDATION CORP: $10,000 · OtherGREENLAW FOU…OPERATION UNDERGROUND RR: $10,000 · OtherOPERATION UN…SAN DIEGO REVER CONSERVATORY: $5,000 · OtherSAN DIEGO RE…FRESH START SURGICAL GIFTS: $2,500 · OtherSAN DIEGO RESCUE MISSION INC: $27,500 · Housing & ShelterALZHEIMER'S SAN DIEGO: $25,000 · HealthSCRIPPS HEALTH: $1,000 · HealthBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $1,000 · HealthSAN DIEGO FIRE-RESCUE FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Public Safety & DisasterBEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY: $2,500 · Animals
Human Services$344,500Philanthropy$83,800Other$62,500Housing & Shelter$27,500Health$27,000Public Safety & Disaster$5,000Animals$2,500

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 budgetGUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND INC: $344,500 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetBIGHORN GOLF CLUB CHARITIES INC: $43,800 over 7y, 0.5% of budgetUNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC: $40,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSAN DIEGO RESCUE MISSION INC: $27,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetALZHEIMER'S SAN DIEGO: $25,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetSAN DIEGO FIRE-RESCUE FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetBEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRESH START SURGICAL GIFTS: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSCRIPPS HEALTH: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $1,000 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Donor Advised Charita…
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO6.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Gershen Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Gershen 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%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 15 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 Gershen 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