· Private foundation
The Lalor Foundation Inc
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 $10k16 grants · $109k
- $10k–50k25 grants · $920k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA | $48,000 |
| JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY | $48,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER | $48,000 |
| MURDOCH CHILDREN'S RESEARCH INSTITUTE | $48,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF UTAH | $48,000 |
| CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER | $48,000 |
| THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA | $48,000 |
| BRIGHAM & WOMEN'S HOSPITAL | $48,000 |
| BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE | $48,000 |
| WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST LOUIS SCHOOL OF MEDICINE | $48,000 |
| REPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION | $35,000 |
| WOMEN'S EMERGENCY NETWORK | $35,000 |
| NATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS | $35,000 |
| THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA | $35,000 |
| PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE | $35,000 |
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 (FY17–23, $155k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 77% 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 +32% since the first grant, against +17% for the ones you funded once.
58 repeat relationships — 20 still active in FY2025, 38 since wound down; 12 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, 57% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $399k 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
- BCBaylor College of Medicine5× · 2019–2025 · $155k · revenue +47%
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY4× · 2017–2024 · $153k · revenue +76%- UOUniversity of Kentucky Research Foundation3× · 2017–2021 · $107k · revenue +66%
Funded once
- UOUNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOLone grant, 2022 · $103k
- TCTHE CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURIone grant, 2022 · $55k
- OHOTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OTTAWA ON CANADAone grant, 2017 · $55k
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.
The institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the united states and globally.
Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.
The mission of Magee-Womens Research Institute and Foundation is to advance scientific knowledge in the fields of reproductive biology and women's health; translate this knowledge into improved health for women and infants; train current…
Gynuity health projects works to develop and advocate for the use of scientific, clinical and programmatic evidence in reproductive and maternal health, assuring that each individual benefits from the fruits of medical science and…
National institute for reproductive health, inc. works to protect and advance equitable access to reproductive health care by building power at the state and local level. using an approach that is rooted in partnerships with state and…
We generate ideas, produce evidence, and design solutions to improve the lives of underserved populations around the world. we take a multidisciplinary, intergenerational, life-cycle approach that contributes to (see schedule o)four global…
Under the medical service plan of the university of maryland school of medicine, medical services are rendered by the members of the faculty on behalf of the school of medicine in connection with their duties to provide clinical…
The mission is to enable all marylanders to have access to a wide range of high quality, affordable reproductive health care services. by providing medical services, education, training and advocacy, ppm seeks to help individuals make…
Ppmw provides high-quality, compassionate healthcare, including reproductive care; promote sexual health; and advocate for reproductive rights and health equity for all.
Healthq is committed to providing sexual and reproductive healthcare without judgment or barriers.
Our mission is to define the standards, certify obstetricians and gynecologists, and facilitate continuous learning to advance knowledge, practice, and professionalism in women's health.
The national institute for reproductive health action fund conducts non-partisan issue advocacy and electoral engagement to advance reproductive health, rights, and justice in states and cities across the country. nirh action fund builds…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Reproductive Equity Now Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Kachemak Bay Family Planning Clinic. 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 32 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 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.
82 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. 82 of the 157 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 Baylor College of Medicine ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ↗
- Who funds University of Kentucky Research Foundation ↗
- Who funds Cornell University ↗
- Who funds THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA ↗
- Who funds JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL GOOD FUND INC ↗
- Who funds OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds REPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Public Health Institute ↗
- Who funds HESPERIAN HEALTH GUIDES ↗
- Who funds THE BRIGID ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds DUKE UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS INC ↗
- Who funds THE JACKSON LABORATORY ↗
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: Hopewell Fund · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · National Institute for Reproductive Health Inc · Anderson-Rogers Foundation Inc · Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc · Ms Foundation for Women Inc · New Venture Fund · National Network of Abortion Funds Inc · Together Women Rise · Women Donors Network · The Educational Foundation of America · The David and Lucile Packard 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 Lalor 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.
- Justice Resource Institute Inc — 48% of income from government
- The Broad Institute Inc — 19% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research — 7% of income from government
- Oregon Health & Science University Foundation — 1% 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 Lalor Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to The Lalor 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.