Skip to content
The Ledingham Family Charitable Foundati at a glance

· Private foundation

The Ledingham Family Charitable Foundati

Its FY2020 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$141k
Granted FY2020
6
Grants FY2020
3
States reached
$31k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0186% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2020.

Education$102kHealth$33kCommunity Improvement$25kYouth Development$5kSocial Science$3kHuman Services$2kEnvironment$1kReligion$1kOther$0
02FY2020 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$25,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Stanford University$30,775
President and Fellows Harvard College$25,000
City Year Inc$25,000
The GreenLight Fund$25,000
Turing School of Software and Design$20,000
McLean Hospital$15,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–20) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 98% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%WELLESLEY EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $500 → 7%HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL: $3k → 8%DANA FARBER: $5k → 16%LPC: $1k → 14%Turing School of Software and Design: $20k → 12%SQUAM LAKES CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $1k → 10%WELLESLEY SCHOLARSHIP: $1k → 7%McLean Hospital: $15k → 8%DANA FARBER: $3k → 16%CHOCOURA CHAPEL ASSOCIATION: $1k → 10%MCLEAN HOSPITAL: $10k → 8%BOY AND GIRLS CLUB OF BOSTON: $3k → 16%CHOCURA CHAPEL ASSN: $500 → 10%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF BOSTON: $3k → 16%SQUAM LAKES CONSERVATION: $500 → 10%The GreenLight Fund: $25k → 16%LPC: $500 → 16%RAISING A READER: $1k → 16%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.

27%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$39k · 4 repeat orgs$103k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +218% since the first grant, against +23% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2020, 3 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
8

Total granted

$39k
$8k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+218%
+23%

Still filing today

50%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 14% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $95k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20
EducationCommunity ImprovementEnvironmentYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • MG
    MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED
    2× · 2019–2020 · $25k
  • DI
    DANA-FARBER INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $8k · revenue +218%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BOSTON INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $5k · revenue +58%

Funded once

  • HB
    HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL
    one grant, 2018 · $3k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2019 · $1k
  • SL
    SQUAM LAKES CONSERVATION SOCIETY
    one grant, 2019 · $1k · revenue +23%
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
Boston Architectural College

The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.

—
2
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
3
The Waldorf School Inc

The waldorf school of lexington nurtures each child's curiosity, ingenuity, and love of learning so that they can meet the future with wonder, confidence, and resilience.

Education
4
Silicon Schools Fund Inc

The mission of the silicon schools fund is to improve education through supporting the launch of excellent new schools, improving academic instruction in existing schools, and by funding some of the boldest innovations in education…

Education
5
The Peak School

The peak school seeks to ignite a passion for learning, to develop students of diverse talents and backgrounds who think critically and act with integrity, and to graduate compassionate, confident, capable students who will embrace their…

Education
6
Massachusetts Higher Education Assistance Corporation

The organization's primary exempt purpose is to provide access to and conduct activities in furtherance of higher education.

—
7
Wheaton College

Wheaton college provides a transformative liberal arts education, combining theory and practice, for intellectually curious students within a collaborative and vibrant extended community and network that values and strives to create an…

Education
8
Claremont Lincoln University

Delivers affordable, accessible, and relevant higher education programs.

Education
9
The Common Application Inc

The common application is a not-for-profit membership organization of over 1,100 colleges and universities across the globe committed to access, equity, and integrity in the college admission process. every year, over 1.5 million students…

Education
10
Wentworth Institute of Technology Inc

Wentworth institute of technology is a nationally recognized private coeducational and residential university of higher education with a mission to empower, inspire and innovate through experiential learning with a core purpose of career…

Education
11
Trustees of Dartmouth College

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.

Education
12
Golden Gate University

Golden gate university prepares individuals to lead and serve by providing high quality, practice-based educational programs in law, taxation, business and related professions - as a nonprofit institution - in an innovative and challenging…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is City Year Inc; the most unlike its peers is Boys & Girls Clubs of Boston 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

9 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. 9 of the 17 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

President and Fellows Harvard College: $25,000 · OtherPresident and Fellows Harvard CollegeMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED: $25,000 · OtherMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATEDCITY YEAR INC: $25,000 · OtherCITY YEAR INCDANA-FARBER INC: $7,500 · OtherDANA-FARBER INC+7 more: $7,500 · Other+7 moreTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $30,775 · EducationTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELA…TURING SCHOOL OF SOFTWARE AND DESIG: $20,000 · EducationTURING SCHOOL OF SOFTWARE AND DES…+1 more: $1,000 · EducationGREENLIGHT FUND INC: $25,000 · Community ImprovementGREENLIGHT FUND …BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BOSTON INC: $5,000 · Youth DevelopmentSQUAM LAKES CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $1,000 · Environment
Other$90,000Education$51,775Community Improvement$25,000Youth Development$5,000Environment$1,000

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 budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $30,775 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCITY YEAR INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGREENLIGHT FUND INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTURING SCHOOL OF SOFTWARE AND DESIG: $20,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetDANA-FARBER INC: $7,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BOSTON INC: $5,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSQUAM LAKES CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRAR-MA INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWellesley Education Foundation Inc: $500 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

Fidelity Investments …
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Ledingham Family Charitable Foundati funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Ledingham Family Charitable Foundati. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 11%
  • City Year Inc: 11% of income from government
  • Boys & Girls Clubs of Boston Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
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 17 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Ledingham Family Charitable Foundati’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