· Private foundation
The Jan M and Eugenia Krol Charitable Foundation Inc C/O R Rosenthal
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 56% of THE JAN M AND EUGENIA KROL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC C/O R ROSENTHAL’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k3 grants · $17k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $73k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WARSAW UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY | $27,500 |
| UMASS CHAN MEDICAL SCHOOL FOUNDATION INC | $20,000 |
| DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC | $15,000 |
| RETT SYNDROME RESEARCH TRUST INC | $10,000 |
| THE UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM | $9,650 |
| SAVE A CHILD'S HEART FOUNDATION US INC | $5,000 |
| WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC | $2,754 |
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 US giving — 68% of grant dollars ($559k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 32% that went abroad ($267k) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY17–22, $67k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 6% 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
Beyond the US — 32% of all-years giving ($267k)
2 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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 +46% since the first grant, against +11% for the ones you funded once.
17 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down; 2 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, 67% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $30k 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 Inc9× · 2017–2025 · $80k · revenue +132%- PCPOTOMAC COMMUNITY RESOURCES INC6× · 2017–2022 · $41k · revenue +46%
- NANATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR RESEARCH ON SCHIZOPHRENIA AND DEPRESSION6× · 2017–2022 · $34k · revenue +60%
Funded once
- UHUS HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUMone grant, 2024 · $6k
- OIOUTREACH INFORMATION SERVICE INCone grant, 2022 · $4k · revenue -76%
- CFCYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATIONone grant, 2018 · $4k
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.
Sanford burnham prebys medical discovery institute's mission is to advance the biomedical sciences by cultivating the next generation of scientific leaders, providing meaningful opportunities for researchers of all backgrounds to learn,…
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.
To significantly improve the lives of people with down syndrome through research, medical care, education and advocacy. an important part of this mission is to support the global affiliate organizations that we helped establish and…
Operate a state-of-the-art, world-class genomic research center that creates and uses advanced genomics to understand the genetic basis of disease. for more information, see schedule o.
Our mission is to break down barriers to als research to find effective treatments. by uniting academia, the pharma and biotech industry, government, venture capital, related nonprofits, and the als community, we aim to overcome the…
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…
The critical path institute is a catalyst in the development of new approaches that advance medical innovation and regulatory science. this is achieved by leading teams that share data, knowledge and expertise resulting in sound, consensus…
The hugo w. moser research institute at kennedy krieger, inc. (the "research institute") is an internationally recognized research facility finding answers to problems and injuries that affect a child's developing brain. researchers have…
The mission of the lung cancer research foundation is to improve lung cancer outcomes by funding research for the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cure of lung cancer.
Our mission is to cure leukemia, lymphoma, hodgkin's disease and myeloma, and improve the quality of life of patients and their families.
Our mission is to expand scientific knowledge and improve public health by designing and conducting world-class clinical trials and epidemiologic research.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Deborah Hospital Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Children's Cerebral Palsy Movement Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 35 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.
22 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. 22 of the 30 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 RETT SYNDROME RESEARCH TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds DEBORAH HOSPITAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds POTOMAC COMMUNITY RESOURCES INC ↗
- Who funds DR SUSAN LOVE RESEARCH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR RESEARCH ON SCHIZOPHRENIA AND DEPRESSION ↗
- Who funds SAVE A CHILD'S HEART FOUNDATION US INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FEDERATION FOR AGING RESEARCH INC ↗
- Who funds JEWISH FOUNDATION FOR GROUP HOMES INC ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ↗
- Who funds The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Ivymount Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds OUTREACH INFORMATION SERVICE INC ↗
- Who funds ALEXS LEMONADE STAND FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds DIRECT RELIEF ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY INC ↗
- Who funds United States Association for UNHCR ↗
- Who funds Children's Cerebral Palsy Movement Inc ↗
- Who funds REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL 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: Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Jan M and Eugenia Krol Charitable Foundation Inc C/O R Rosenthal 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.
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% 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 Jan M and Eugenia Krol Charitable Foundation Inc C/O R Rosenthal?
Find your warmest path to The Jan M and Eugenia Krol Charitable Foundation Inc C/O R Rosenthal 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.