Skip to content
The Leon Smith Polk Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

The Leon Smith Polk 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.

$202k
Granted FY2024still arriving
12
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$41k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0185% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Arts & Culture$558kEducation$45kHealth$35kCivil Rights$15kSocial Science$8kPublic Safety & Disaster$5kOther$0
02FY2024 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $16k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $186k
$15,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$12M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
INTERNATIONAL STUDIO & CURATORIAL PROGRAM$41,448
CAMARGO FOUNDATION$35,000
The Regents of the University of Michigan$25,000
The Land with No Name Sanctuary$20,000
Independent Curators International$20,000
ARTTABLE$15,000
AAMC Foundation$10,000
River Valley Arts Collective$10,000
LOWER EAST SIDE PRINTSHOP$10,000
The Elizabeth Foundation for the Arts$7,500
IAIA Mueseum of Contemporary Native Arts$5,000
The Aspen Institute$3,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 98% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%The Land with No Name Sanctuary: $20k → 15%CAMARGO FOUNDATION: $35k → 14%River Valley Arts Collective: $10k → 9%WOODSTOCK BYRDCLIFFE GUILD: $50k → 16%FOUNDATION FOR CONTEMP ART: $5k → 17%INTERNATIONAL STUDIO & CURATORIAL PROGRAM: $41k → 20%INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN INDIAN ARTS: $55k → 12%PUEBLO RELIEF FUND: $5k → 14%FIRST AMERICAN MUSEUM: $15k → 16%THE ASPEN INSTITUTE: $3k → 14%The Regents of the University of Michigan: $25k → 14%OSU FOUNDATION: $15k → 18%FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT FUND: $5k → 12%JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER: $5k → 19%CAMARGO FOUNDATION: $25k → 14%WOODSTOCK BYRDCLIFFE GUILD: $25k → 16%AAMC Foundation: $10k → 17%INTERNATIONAL STUDIO & CURATORIAL PROGRAM: $22k → 20%IAIA Mueseum of Contemporary Native Arts: $5k → 12%AAMC FOUNDATION: $5k → 14%OSU FOUNDATION: $15k → 18%CAMARGO FOUNDATION: $25k → 14%WOODSTOCK BYRDCLIFFE GUILD: $25k → 16%The Aspen Institute: $3k → 17%KENTLER INTL DRAWING SPACE: $20k → 20%OSU FOUNDATION: $15k → 18%CAMARGO FOUNDATION: $25k → 14%LOWER EAST SIDE PRINTSHOP: $50k → 17%LOWER EAST SIDE PRINTSHOP: $25k → 17%LOWER EAST SIDE PRINTSHOP: $25k → 17%LOWER EAST SIDE PRINTSHOP: $10k → 17%The Elizabeth Foundation for the Arts: $8k → 17%ARTTABLE: $19k → 17%ARTTABLE: $15k → 17%ARTTABLE: $12k → 17%ARTTABLE: $12k → 17%ARTTABLE: $10k → 17%ARTTABLE: $5k → 17%THE ASPEN INSTITUTE: $3k → 17%STUDIO IN SCHOOL: $10k → 17%AMERINDA INC: $10k → 17%INDEPENDENT CURATORS INTERNATIONAL: $20k → 17%Independent Curators International: $20k → 17%INDEPENDENT CURATORS INTERNATIONAL: $10k → 17%INDEPENDENT CURATORS INTERNATIONAL: $10k → 17%ARCHIVES OF AMERICAN ART: $35k → 17%ARCHIVES OF AMERICAN ART: $13k → 17%MADISON SQUARE PARK: $5k → 17%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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
MI
NY
OR
CO
MD
AZ
NM
DC
OK
TX
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.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$618k · 9 repeat orgs$263k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
16

Total granted

$618k
$186k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+27%
+85%

Still filing today

78%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $78k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Arts & CulturePublic BenefitEducationSocial ScienceOther
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

  • TC
    THE CAMARGO FOUNDATION
    4× · 2021–2024 · $110k · revenue +39%
  • AI
    ARTTABLE INC
    6× · 2019–2024 · $73k · revenue +5%
  • IC
    INDEPENDENT CURATORS INTERNATIONAL
    4× · 2019–2024 · $60k · revenue +34%

Funded once

  • IO
    INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN INDIAN ARTS
    one grant, 2019 · $55k
  • NA
    NATIVE ARTS & CULTURES
    one grant, 2021 · $30k
  • KI
    KENTLER INTERNATIONAL DRAWING SPACE INC
    one grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue -40%
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
International Contemporary Art Foundatio
Arts & Culture
2
Berggruen Institute
Education
3
California Institute of Contemporary Art
—
4
Kadist Collection Manager Inc
Arts & Culture
5
The Florence Center for Contemporary Music
Arts & Culture
6
Art Explorium
—
7
Art Foundation
Arts & Culture
8
Kimbell Art Foundation
Arts & Culture
9
International Foundation for Arts & Culture Inc
Arts & Culture
10
Artpace Inc (Audit)

Artpace san antonio is a nonprofit residency program which supports texas, national, and international artists in the creation of new art. see schedule o for continuation.

Arts & Culture
11
Art Ambassador
—
12
San Francisco Art Studio Foundation
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Foundation for Contemporary Arts Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Camargo Foundation. 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

15 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. 15 of the 31 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)
15/15
Grantees still filing
7/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE CAMARGO FOUNDATION: $110,000 · OtherTHE CAMARGO FOUNDATIONLOWER EAST SIDE PRINTSHOP INC: $110,000 · OtherLOWER EAST SIDE PRINTSHOP INCIndividual grant recipient: $100,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientINSTITUTE OF AMERICAN INDIAN ARTS: $55,000 · OtherINSTITUTE OF AMERICAN INDIAN ARTSARCHIVES OF AMERICAN ART: $48,000 · OtherARCHIVES OF AMERICAN ARTNATIVE ARTS & CULTURES: $30,000 · OtherNATIVE ARTS & CULTURESREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $25,000 · Other+11 more: $80,200 · Other+11 moreINTERNATIONAL STUDIO & CURATORIAL PROGRAM INC: $63,548 · Arts & CultureINTERNATIONAL STUDIO & CU…INDEPENDENT CURATORS INTERNATIONAL: $60,000 · Arts & CultureINDEPENDENT CURATORS INTE…The Land With No Name Sanctuary: $20,000 · Arts & CultureThe Land With No Name San…KENTLER INTERNATIONAL DRAWING SPACE INC: $20,000 · Arts & CultureKENTLER INTERNATIONAL DRA…RIVER VALLEY ARTS COLLECTIVE INC: $10,000 · Arts & CultureTHE AAMC FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Arts & CultureTHE ELIZABETH FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS: $7,500 · Arts & Culture+3 more: $5,600 · Arts & CultureARTTABLE INC: $73,000 · Public BenefitARTTABLE …Oregon State University Foundation: $45,000 · EducationTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $8,000 · Social Science
Other$558,200Arts & Culture$196,648Public Benefit$73,000Education$45,000Social Science$8,000

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 CAMARGO FOUNDATION: $110,000 over 4y, 4.3% of budgetLOWER EAST SIDE PRINTSHOP INC: $110,000 over 4y, 9.1% of budgetARTTABLE INC: $73,000 over 6y, 2.6% of budgetINTERNATIONAL STUDIO & CURATORIAL PROGRAM INC: $63,548 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetINDEPENDENT CURATORS INTERNATIONAL: $60,000 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetOregon State University Foundation: $45,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetThe Land With No Name Sanctuary: $20,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetKENTLER INTERNATIONAL DRAWING SPACE INC: $20,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetRIVER VALLEY ARTS COLLECTIVE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetTHE AAMC FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $8,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ELIZABETH FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS: $7,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR CONTEMPORARY ARTS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMUNSON-WILLIAMS-PROCTOR ARTS INSTITUTE: $400 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDallas Museum of Art: $200 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.

  • Who funds THE CAMARGO FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds LOWER EAST SIDE PRINTSHOP INC ↗
  • Who funds ARTTABLE INC ↗
  • Who funds INTERNATIONAL STUDIO & CURATORIAL PROGRAM INC ↗
  • Who funds INDEPENDENT CURATORS INTERNATIONAL ↗
  • Who funds Oregon State University Foundation ↗
  • Who funds The Land With No Name Sanctuary ↗
  • Who funds KENTLER INTERNATIONAL DRAWING SPACE INC ↗
  • Who funds RIVER VALLEY ARTS COLLECTIVE INC ↗
  • Who funds THE AAMC FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC ↗
  • Who funds THE ELIZABETH FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS ↗
  • Who funds FOUNDATION FOR CONTEMPORARY ARTS INC ↗
  • Who funds MUNSON-WILLIAMS-PROCTOR ARTS INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds Dallas Museum of Art ↗

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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Andy Warhol Found…Milton and Sally Aver…Helen Frankenthaler F…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts IncNY15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Inc · Milton and Sally Avery Arts Foundation · Helen Frankenthaler Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Leon Smith Polk Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Leon Smith Polk Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Oregon State University Foundation: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
3report 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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to The Leon Smith Polk Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to The Leon Smith Polk 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.

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 31 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Leon Smith Polk’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