· Private foundation
The Michael & Nancy Berman Family 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 FY2019–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $4k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| H U G S FOR HAWAII | $50,000 |
| GIRL RISING | $2,500 |
| COMMUNITY AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE INC | $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 (FY19–23, $24k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 96% 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 29% of The Michael & Nancy Berman Family Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
14 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down; 2 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, 5% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $51k 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
- CACHILD AND FAMILY ADVOCACY PROGRAM3× · 2021–2023 · $20k · revenue +17%
- CFCOMMUNITY FOOD SHARE INC2× · 2020–2021 · $15k · revenue +18%
- 8V826 Valencia4× · 2019–2023 · $7k · revenue +71%
Funded once
- HNHO'OLA NA PUAgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $20k · revenue +65%
- BCBOULDER COMMUNITY HEALTH FOUNDATIONone grant, 2020 · $13k · revenue -42%
- EFEMERGENCY FAMILY ASSISTANCE ASSOCIATIONgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $11k · revenue +105%
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.
The Boulder Watershed Collective is a 501c3 non-profit stakeholder-driven organization established to address forested watershed health,resiliency and stewardship. We have three program areas: ClimateAdaptation and Resilience Watershed…
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
Greater yellowstone coalition works with all people to protect the lands, waters, and wildlife of the greater yellowstone ecosystem, now and for future generations.
Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…
Protecting the open land and special places of the roaring fork and middle colorado river valleys for wildlife, agriculture, and community forever.
Colorado center on law and policy is an antipoverty organization advancing the rights of every coloradan.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
Advancing the well-being of all coloradans through relationships free from abuse and oppression.
Colorado nonprofit association strengthens colorado's nonprofits through education, connection and advocacy.
To protect the rainforest and advance the rights of Indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with Indigenous communities in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability, and the preservation of the Amazon Basin's…
Conservation legacy engages future leaders who protect, restore, and enhance our nation's lands through community-based service.in 2024, conservation legacy engaged 2,524 participants who completed over 1.5 million service hours on public…
Stewardship of climbing access areas and climbing access trails.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Foundation Boulder County and the most unlike its peers is Sakyadhita Hawaii. 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 27 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% 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.
43 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. 43 of the 46 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 COMMUNITY FOUNDATION BOULDER COUNTY ↗
- Who funds JEWISHColorado ↗
- Who funds CHILD AND FAMILY ADVOCACY PROGRAM ↗
- Who funds HO'OLA NA PUA ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY FOOD SHARE INC ↗
- Who funds BOULDER COMMUNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds YAMPA VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds EMERGENCY FAMILY ASSISTANCE ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Girl Rising ↗
- Who funds SAKYADHITA HAWAII ↗
- Who funds 826 Valencia ↗
- Who funds PRISON UNIVERSITY PROJECT INC DBA MOUNT TAMALPAIS COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds Wilderness Torah ↗
- Who funds THE NORTH SHORE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds KA LAHUI KAI ↗
- Who funds BOULDER SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS INC ↗
- Who funds THE BOULDER JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds COACH2EDIFY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE BAIL PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds THE CORAL REEF ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds LITTLE LIONS KENYA INC ↗
- Who funds RAINFOREST ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds OCEANA INC ↗
- Who funds Operation Second Chance Inc ↗
- Who funds PINE RIDGE GIRLS SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds THERE WITH CARE ↗
- Who funds SOGOREA TE LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds WICA AGLI INC ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC BROADCASTING OF COLORADO INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF ROSEBUD ↗
- Who funds Oglala Lakota Childrens Justice Center Inc ↗
- Who funds BICYCLE COLORADO ↗
- Who funds Native American Heritage Association ↗
- Who funds SAFE SHELTER OF ST VRAIN VALLEY ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN PUBLIC MEDIA INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds INDIGENOUS CELEBRATION INC ↗
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: Community Foundation Boulder County · Colorado Gives Foundation · Kissinger Family Foundation Inc · Tides Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Amg Charitable Gift Foundation · The Wolf Family Foundation · The Longmont Community Foundation · Novo Foundation · Rose Community Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · The Denver 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 & Nancy Berman Family 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Michael & Nancy Berman Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Michael & Nancy Berman Family Foundation 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.