· Private foundation
The Orszag Foundation Inc Fka the Jonathan Orszag Foundation Inc
Its FY2018 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 FY2017–2018.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2018
- Under $10k14 grants · $46k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $30k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $350k
- $250k+1 grant · $250k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE | $250,000 |
| THE FIRST TEE (WORLD GOLF FOUNDATION) | $150,000 |
| TIGER WOODS FOUNDATION | $100,080 |
| GOOD FOUNDATION (FKA BABY BUGGY) | $100,000 |
| HAMMER MUSEUM | $20,000 |
| UCLA FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| INNER-CITY SCHOLARSHIP FUND | $7,400 |
| THE NEST SCHOOL | $6,650 |
| ST BALDRICKS FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| THEATRE FORWARD | $5,000 |
| NJTL OF TRENTON | $5,000 |
| THE GREATER LOS ANGELES ZOO ASSOCIATION | $5,000 |
| LIFT INC (NETWORK FOR GOOD) | $3,605 |
| AQUARIUM OF THE PACIFIC | $2,500 |
| SHANE'S INSPIRATION (INCLUSION MATTERS) | $1,775 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–18) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 65% of your 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 +132% since the first grant, against +21% for the ones you funded once.
8 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2018, 0 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (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 FY2018, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $173k 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
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc2× · 2017–2018 · $501k · revenue +132%- TWTIGER WOODS FOUNDATION INC2× · 2017–2018 · $200k · revenue +304%
- TNTHE NEST SCHOOL2× · 2017–2018 · $22k · revenue ×21
Funded once
- TFTHE FIRST TEE PALM BEACHES (WORLD GOLF FOUNDATION)one grant, 2017 · $150k
- FOFRIENDS OF THE GLOBAL FIGHT AGAINST AIDS TUBERCULOSIS AND MALARIAone grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue -77%
- BGBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICAgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $15k · revenue +62%
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 mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
The Television Academy is dedicated to celebrating excellence, innovation and the advancement of the telecommunications arts and sciences through recognition, education and leadership, while fostering a diverse, inclusive and accessible…
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
Enhance the ability of actec members to provide the most efficient and highest quality services to their clients; develop qualified trust and estate counselors; improve and reform probate, trust and tax laws, procedures, and standards of…
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
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…
The association serves its members by creating resources that enable california school administrators to develop and apply creative leadership and management skills and in turn, improve the educational process for all students.
The charitable arm of the tv academy, the academy of television arts & sciences foundation, is dedicated to preserving television while educating and inspiring future leaders.
The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…
Vision: drive positive change through the power of design and focused activism.mission: aia inspires and empowers architects to improve society and transform the world.
The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tiger Woods Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 34 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.
24 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. 24 of the 36 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 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds TIGER WOODS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ARMAND HAMMER MUSEUM OF ART AND CULTURAL CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE GLOBAL FIGHT AGAINST AIDS TUBERCULOSIS AND MALARIA ↗
- Who funds THE NEST SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds UCLA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GREATER LOS ANGELES ZOOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds THEATRE FORWARD INC ↗
- Who funds INNER CITY SCHOLARSHIP FUND INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICA-ISRAEL ECONOMIC FORUM ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL JUNIOR TENNIS & LEARNING OF TRENTON INC ↗
- Who funds ST BALDRICK'S FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER THEATRE GROUP OF LOS ANGELES ↗
- Who funds AQUARIUM OF THE PACIFIC CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
- Who funds VENICE FAMILY CLINIC ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK ACADEMY OF ART ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN MENDING HEARTS INC ↗
- Who funds VISION TO LEARN ↗
- Who funds The Trustees of Princeton University ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds Save The Children Federation 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: Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Orszag Foundation Inc Fka the Jonathan Orszag 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 11% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
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.