· Private foundation
The Marilyn T and David R Heebner 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 clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| URBAN ARTISTRY | $5,000 |
| DC ARTS & HUMANITIES EDUCATION COLLABORATIVE | $5,000 |
| SMYAL | $5,000 |
| FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE | $2,500 |
| AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND | $2,500 |
| MMCG INC | $1,000 |
| MY FRIENDS PLACE | $1,000 |
| FRIENDS OF FORT DUPONT ICE ARENA | $500 |
| SOCCER IN THE STREETS | $500 |
| OPEN CITY ADVOCATES | $500 |
| ERIN'S HOPE FOR FRIENDS | $500 |
| MIDDLE TYGER COMMUNITY CENTER | $500 |
| SEALASKA HERITAGE INSTITUTE | $500 |
| DIGDEEP RIGHT TO WATER PROJECT | $500 |
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 (FY17–25, $35k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 99% 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 +40% since the first grant, against +21% for the ones you funded once.
36 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2025, 25 since wound down; 3 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, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k 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
- SISMYAL Inc6× · 2020–2025 · $26k · revenue +108%
- UAURBAN ARTISTRY INC6× · 2020–2025 · $26k · revenue +8%
BLACK WOMEN FOR WELLNESS5× · 2020–2024 · $19k · revenue +137%
Funded once
- NENEW ENDEAVORS BY WOMENgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $3k · revenue +28%
- RCRECOVERY CAFE DCone grant, 2020 · $3k · revenue +21%
- NVNORTHERN VIRGINIA SCIENCE CENTER FOUNDATIONone grant, 2019 · $3k · revenue +22%
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.
Work with DC courts, private bar & legal services providers to increase legal representations for low & moderate income DC residents, enhance efficiency of legal services, and reduce barriers to the judicial system.
Our mission is to dramatically improve the early career outcomes of dc youth and young adults of color by creating innovative programs and by mobilizing employers, educators, and city leaders to create a local, diverse talent pipeline. our…
Girls for gender equity (gge) works intergenerationally, through a black feminist lens, to achieve gender and racial justice by centering the leadership of black girls and gender-expansive young people of color to reshape culture and…
The international center for research for women (icrw) is a global research institute, with a mission to advance rights and opportunities for women, girls, and structurally excluded populations with actionable evidence and solutions.
Alternatives, inc.'s mission is to facilitate personal development,strengthen family relationships and enhance the community's well being. serving over 3,000 youth and families annually, the organization offers a range of counseling and…
Service Never Sleeps (SNS) envisions a world where equal rights, justice, and opportunity are available to all. Through its signature Allyship curriculum, SNS trains individuals to leverage their respective areas of privilege to advance…
To encourage, promote and facilitate broad and inclusive civic participation.
The Justice Policy Institute is dedicated to reducing the use of incarceration and involvement in the justice system by promoting fair and effective policies.
Disability rights washington's mission is to advance the dignity, equality, and self determination of people with disabilities. we work to pursue justice on matters related to human and legal rights.
A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…
Ultraviolet education fund (uvef) is a 501c3 organization. ultraviolet is the premier national organization advocating for gender justice issues using creative, strategic campaigning and digital-first organizing. ultraviolet drives…
To achieve legal and systematic change that addresses violence and discrimination against women and girls around the world.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Open City Advocates and the most unlike its peers is The National Museum of Women in the Arts. 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 29 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.
54 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 54 of the 74 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 SMYAL Inc ↗
- Who funds URBAN ARTISTRY INC ↗
- Who funds BLACK WOMEN FOR WELLNESS ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND ↗
- Who funds FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION ↗
- Who funds N STREET VILLAGE INC ↗
- Who funds Girl Scout Council of the Nation's Capital ↗
- Who funds D C ARTS AND HUMANITIES EDUCATION COLLABORATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds Feminist Womens Health Center Inc ↗
- Who funds Jenesse Center Inc ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON ENGLISH CENTER ↗
- Who funds RESET ↗
- Who funds Friends of Fort Dupont Ice Arena Inc ↗
- Who funds NEW ENDEAVORS BY WOMEN ↗
- Who funds RECOVERY CAFE DC ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN VIRGINIA SCIENCE CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ART ENABLES ↗
- Who funds Imagine Los Angeles Inc ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence ↗
- Who funds Partner for Surgery Inc ↗
- Who funds EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds MIKVA CHALLENGE GRANT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds UNITED NEGRO COLLEGE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds MMCG Inc ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds URBAN LEAGUE OF THE UPSTATE ↗
- Who funds THE DIGDEEP RIGHT TO WATER PROJECT ↗
- Who funds FERST READERS INC ↗
- Who funds MENTAL HEALTH ADVOCACY SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds MIDDLE TYGER COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
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: The Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation · Greater Washington Community Foundation · William S Abell Foundation Inc · Eugene & Agnes E Meyer Foundation · United Way of the National Capital Area · Dimick Foundation John M Lynham Jr Trustee · Philip L Graham Fund co Graham Holdings Company · The California Wellness Foundation · Weissberg Foundation · Clark-Winchcole Foundation · Global Impact · Silicon Valley Community 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 Marilyn T and David R Heebner 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.
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.