· Private foundation
The Michael & Jacalyn Leavitt Foundation
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 $10k8 grants · $16k
- $10k–50k9 grants · $152k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Mayors Fund for Las Vegas Life | $50,000 |
| Southern Utah University | $46,819 |
| The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | $20,100 |
| Western Governors University | $20,000 |
| T-Birds with a Purpose | $15,000 |
| The Academy for Creating Enterprise | $10,000 |
| Maliheh Free Clinic | $10,000 |
| East High School Foundation | $10,000 |
| Unicef USA | $10,000 |
| World Food Program | $10,000 |
| Ensign Peak Foundation | $5,000 |
| Canyon Creek Services | $5,000 |
| Charitable Events Corp | $2,000 |
| American Prep Education Foundation | $1,070 |
| Eni & Hina Faleomavaega Foundation | $1,000 |
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 (FY20–25, $78k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 30% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 +12% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
16 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 11 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, 46% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $118k 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
- CECharitable Events Corporation4× · 2017–2025 · $15k · revenue ×22
- MFMaliheh Free Clinic2× · 2022–2025 · $15k · revenue +63%
- CCCANYON CREEK WOMENS CRISIS CENTER4× · 2022–2025 · $14k · revenue +17%
Funded once
- MGMORE GOOD FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -35%
- CLCare Labgraduatedone grant, 2024 · $15k · revenue +47%
- JMJohn Miller's Charityone grant, 2024 · $5k
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.
To serve as a catalyst for quality job growth and increased capital investment in the state.
The Child Liberation Foundation (CLF), founded in February 2017, is dedicated to eradicating child trafficking worldwide. In 2023, CLF expanded its mission beyond rescue operations to emphasize rehabilitation and healing for survivors of…
Provide support to the University of Utah Growth Capital Partners Foundation in Charitable, Educational and Scientific purposes.
We serve Utah's children by finding, educating, and nurturing families to meet the needs of children in foster care
Treating substance use disorders, rebuilding lives, strengthening families, and empowering women.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Orrin G Hatch Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Hanging Cleats Foundation. 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 17 years old; the field is 15. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 11% of your grantees by number, and just 12% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
32 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. 32 of the 52 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 THE NASHVILLE CHAMBER PUBLIC BENEFIT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MAYOR'S FUND FOR LAS VEGAS LIFE ↗
- Who funds Encircle Family and Youth Resource Center ↗
- Who funds T Birds with a Purpose Inc ↗
- Who funds MORE GOOD FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Charitable Events Corporation ↗
- Who funds Care Lab ↗
- Who funds Maliheh Free Clinic ↗
- Who funds CANYON CREEK WOMENS CRISIS CENTER ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds Academy for Creating Enterprise ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO AIDS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NO POOR AMONG US ↗
- Who funds Hanging Cleats Foundation ↗
- Who funds COLOR COUNTRY FUTBOL CLUB ↗
- Who funds CHAIR THE HOPE INC ↗
- Who funds Ensign Peak Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE ORRIN G HATCH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Internet Keep Safe Coalition ↗
- Who funds UTAH YOUTH VILLAGE ↗
- Who funds MusicLight Inc ↗
- Who funds Holding Out HELP ↗
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: Sorenson Legacy Foundation · The Community Foundation of Utah · Ihc Health Services Inc · Semnani Family Foundation · Beesley Family Foundation · Larry H Miller and Gail Miller Family Foundation · George S and Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation · doTERRA Healing Hands Foundation · The Huntsman Foundation · The Ashton Family Foundation · Intermountain Community Care Foundation Inc · Lawrence & Janet Dee 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 Michael & Jacalyn Leavitt Foundation 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.