· Private foundation
The Hanson Family Foundation Inc
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ECOLOGISTICS INC | $9,000 |
| TETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST | $4,000 |
| CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE | $3,000 |
| NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS | $3,000 |
| ALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES | $2,500 |
| CIRCLES AND CIPHERS | $2,000 |
| COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS | $2,000 |
| LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND | $1,750 |
| YOUTH & OPPORTUNITY UNITED (YOU) | $1,000 |
| INFANT WELFARE SOCIETY OF EVANSTON | $1,000 |
| INSIGHT MEDITATION SOCIETY | $1,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA | $1,000 |
| AMAZON WATCH | $750 |
| SIERRA CLUB ILLIOIS | $500 |
| FAITH IN PLACE | $500 |
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 (FY18–24, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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 +95% since the first grant, against -10% for the ones you funded once.
29 repeat relationships — 15 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down; 2 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, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k 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
- EIECOLOGISTICS INC4× · 2021–2024 · $29k · revenue +275%
- TRTETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST INC7× · 2017–2024 · $29k · revenue +233%
- GHGROWING HOME INC7× · 2017–2024 · $19k · revenue +112%
Funded once
- RTRESOURCE TRAINING CENTER INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $8k · revenue +40%
SHARE OUR STRENGTHone grant, 2020 · $3k · revenue -44%- AJA JUST HARVESTgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $2k · revenue +246%
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.
Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
To develop and promote a carbon dividends framework - based on carbon fees whose revenues are rebated to citizens through dividends - as the most cost-effective, equitable, and politically viable climate solution.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.
E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.
To launch breakthrough climate mitigation efforts by identifying, supporting, and unleashing innovative leaders with transformative strategies.
Common future is a network of pioneering leaders across the u.s. and canada who work deeply within their communities to create alternative approaches to business, philanthropy, and investing. we envision an economy that has transitioned…
To investigate, research, write, publish, present conferences and teach with respect to global, regional, transboundary, and comparative environmental issues and to make the findings from such activities available to the general public; to…
Environment next supports individuals, nonprofits and businesses around the world on solutions to complex climate issues. we provide leadership, outreach and communication support, grants, and investments to empower leaders and their ideas…
To drive transformational adaptation to protect communities across the country from higher seas, stronger storms, and more frequent flooding.
Educational & charitable. to provide legal and scientific information to public interest attorneys and scientists in numerous countries.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Alliance for the Great Lakes and the most unlike its peers is Circles and Ciphers. 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 31 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) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 4% 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.
34 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. 34 of the 43 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 ECOLOGISTICS INC ↗
- Who funds TETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds GROWING HOME INC ↗
- Who funds THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS INC ↗
- Who funds Circles and Ciphers ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES ↗
- Who funds RESOURCE TRAINING CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds 350 VERMONT INC ↗
- Who funds CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC ↗
- Who funds ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE & RELATED DISORDERS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds INFANT WELFARE SOCIETY OF EVANSTON INC ↗
- Who funds Amazon Watch Inc ↗
- Who funds YOUTH & OPPORTUNITY UNITED INC ↗
- Who funds LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD INC ↗
- Who funds FAITH IN PLACE ↗
- Who funds VALLEY ADVOCATES FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT INC ↗
- Who funds SHARE OUR STRENGTH ↗
- Who funds THE CLEAR FUND ↗
- Who funds OXFAM-AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds A JUST HARVEST ↗
- Who funds 350ORG ↗
- Who funds COALITION FOR RAINFOREST NATIONS SECRETARIAT ↗
- Who funds CURT'S CAFE ↗
- Who funds SUNRISE MOVEMENT ↗
- Who funds University of Illinois Foundation ↗
- Who funds LAWNDALE CHRISTIAN LEGAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE ACTUARIAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
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 Chicago Community Trust · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · Evanston Community Foundation · Polk Bros Foundation Inc · United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Forefront · Helen V Brach Foundation · Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc
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 Hanson Family Foundation Inc 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Oxfam-America Inc — 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 Hanson Family Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to The Hanson Family Foundation Inc 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.