Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Margulis Foundation for Freedom and Opportunity

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.

$670k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$200k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Public Benefit$1.2MEducation$640kCivil Rights$385kEmployment$265kCommunity Improvement$90kCrime & Legal$15k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $90k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $575k
$50,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$2.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
STAND TOGETHER TRUST$200,000
ILLINOIS POLICY INSTITUTE$150,000
CATO INSTITUTE$124,600
CARA PROGRAM$50,000
THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY$50,000
CHICAGOS SUNSHINE ENTERPRISES INC$40,000
SKILLS FOR CHICAGO$25,000
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY$25,000
LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER$5,000
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 (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 78% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE: $5k → 11%FREE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $25k → 11%ILLINOIS POLICY INSTITUTE: $150k → 14%THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 11%STUDENTS FOR LIBERTY: $10k → 6%STAND TOGETHER TRUST: $200k → 7%FREE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $25k → 11%ILLINOIS POLICY INSTITUTE: $125k → 14%THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 11%STUDENTS FOR LIBERTY: $10k → 6%STAND TOGETHER: $150k → 7%FREE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $25k → 11%ILLINOIS POLICY INSTITUTE: $100k → 14%THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 11%STAND TOGETHER: $100k → 7%FREE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION: $5k → 14%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $25k → 11%ILLINOIS POLICY INSTITUTE: $60k → 14%THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 11%STAND TOGETHER: $100k → 7%CATO INSTITUTE: $125k → 14%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $25k → 11%ILLINOIS POLICY INSTITUTE: $60k → 14%THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 11%CATO INSTITUTE: $100k → 14%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $25k → 11%ILLINOIS POLICY INSTITUTE: $50k → 14%THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: $10k → 11%CATO INSTITUTE: $100k → 14%CHICAGOS SUNSHINE ENTERPRISES INC: $40k → 14%CATO INSTITUTE: $100k → 14%CHICAGOS SUNSHINE ENTERPRISES INC: $25k → 14%CATO INSTITUTE: $100k → 14%CHICAGOS SUNSHINE ENTERPRISES INC: $25k → 14%CATO INSTITUTE: $100k → 14%CARA PROGRAM: $50k → 14%STUDENTS FOR LIBERTY: $10k → 14%THE CARA PROGRAM: $50k → 14%THE CARA PROGRAM: $30k → 14%THE CARA PROGRAM: $30k → 14%THE CARA PROGRAM: $30k → 14%THE CARA PROGRAM: $25k → 14%LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER: $5k → 14%SKILLS FOR CHICAGOLAND'S FUTURE: $25k → 14%SKILLS FOR CHICAGO: $25k → 14%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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.4M · 11 repeat orgs$205k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
1

Total granted

$2.4M
$5k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+106%

Still filing today

73%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $200k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Public BenefitEducationEmploymentCommunity ImprovementCrime & LegalOther
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

  • CI
    CATO INSTITUTE
    6× · 2020–2025 · $625k · revenue +93%
  • IP
    ILLINOIS POLICY INSTITUTE
    6× · 2020–2025 · $545k · revenue +8%
  • TC
    The Cara Program
    6× · 2020–2025 · $215k · revenue +83%

Funded once

  • BG
    BARRY GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCHgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $5k · revenue +106%
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
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

The american enterprise institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening free enterprise. aei pursues these ideals through independent thinking and the…

Social Science
2
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research Inc

The manhattan institute is a community of scholars, journalists, activists, and civic leaders dedicated to advancing opportunity, individual liberty, and the rule of law in america and its great cities.

Public Benefit
3
Open Markets Institute

The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.

Education
4
American Law Institute

The institute's mission, as set out in its certificate of incorporation, is to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to…

Crime & Legal
5
R Street Institute

The r street institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public-policy research organization ("think tank"). our mission is to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government. (continued on…

Education
6
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
7
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Competitive enterprise institute (cei) is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. we believe that consumers are best helped not by government regulation but by being…

—
8
Central Indiana Corporate Partnership Inc

Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…

Community Improvement
9
Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute

The chicago psychoanalytic institute transforms the lives of individuals, families and communities, using psychoanalytic knowledge to help them grow and thrive.

Social Science
10
Employ America

To promote macroeconomic policies that ensure the sustained advancement of labor market outcomes for all american workers, i.e. tight labor markets, higher wages and better quality employment.

Employment
11
Illinois College

Illinois college is a co-educational institution of higher education learning providing a four-year educational program leading to the baccalaureate degree. illinois college is a community committed to the highest standards of scholarship…

Education
12
Association of Legal Administrators

Ala is the catalyst for growth by providing: diverse educational experiences, engaged peer communities, strategic solutions, dynamic resources, and trusted networks.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Illinois Policy Institute; the most unlike its peers is Washington University. 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

10 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. 10 of the 13 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
9/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CATO INSTITUTE: $624,600 · Public BenefitCATO INSTITUTEILLINOIS POLICY INSTITUTE: $545,000 · Public BenefitILLINOIS POLICY INSTITUTE+1 more: $5,000 · Public BenefitSTAND TOGETHER: $350,000 · OtherSTAND TOGETHERTHE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: $260,000 · OtherTHE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UN…FREE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION: $35,000 · OtherFREE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATIONTHE SEMINAR NETWORK INC: $200,000 · EducationTHE SEMINAR NETW…WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $150,000 · EducationWASHINGTON UNIVE…STUDENTS FOR LIBERTY INC: $30,000 · EducationSTUDENTS FOR LIB…The Cara Program: $215,000 · EmploymentThe Cara Pr…SKILLS FOR CHICAGO: $50,000 · EmploymentSKILLS FOR …CHICAGO'S SUNSHINE ENTERPRISES INC: $90,000 · Community ImprovementLIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER: $15,000 · Crime & Legal
Public Benefit$1,174,600Other$645,000Education$380,000Employment$265,000Community Improvement$90,000Crime & Legal$15,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCATO INSTITUTE: $624,600 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetILLINOIS POLICY INSTITUTE: $545,000 over 6y, 1.5% of budgetThe Cara Program: $215,000 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $150,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetCHICAGO'S SUNSHINE ENTERPRISES INC: $90,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetSKILLS FOR CHICAGO: $50,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetSTUDENTS FOR LIBERTY INC: $30,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetLIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER: $15,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetBARRY GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 CATO INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds ILLINOIS POLICY INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds The Cara Program ↗
  • Who funds THE SEMINAR NETWORK INC ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds CHICAGO'S SUNSHINE ENTERPRISES INC ↗
  • Who funds SKILLS FOR CHICAGO ↗
  • Who funds STUDENTS FOR LIBERTY INC ↗
  • Who funds LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds BARRY GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH ↗

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 Chicago Community TrustIL14.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Chicago Community Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Margulis Foundation for Freedom and Opportunity funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Margulis Foundation for Freedom and Opportunity. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s 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 · 0–20%
    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 13 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Margulis Foundation for Freedom and Opportunity’s filings →

    More from the funding graph