Skip to content
The Orszag Foundation Inc Fka the Jonathan Orszag Foundation Inc at a glance

· 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.

$676k
Granted FY2018
20
Grants FY2018
6
States reached
$250k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2018.

Health$515kEducation$240kYouth Development$166kRecreation & Sports$155kHuman Services$133kArts & Culture$59kInternational$30kAnimals$10kOther$0
02FY2018 · 20 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2018

  • Under $10k14 grants · $46k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $30k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $350k
  • $250k+1 grant · $250k
$5,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (FY17–18) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 65% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE: $250k → 7%CAPE COD HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION: $250 → 8%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE: $251k → 16%GOFUNDMECOM - SGT LA DAVID T JOHNSON SCHOLARSHIP: $100 → 7%TIGER WOODS FOUNDATION: $100k → 10%AQUARIUM OF THE PACIFIC: $3k → 14%GOOD FOUNDATION (FKA BABY BUGGY): $24k → 17%WORLD WILDLIFE FUND: $400 → 14%THE FIRST TEE PALM BEACHES (WORLD GOLF FOUNDATION): $150k → 11%SAVE THE CHILDREN FEDERATION: $100 → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA: $15k → 13%AMERICA ISRAEL ECONOMIC FORUM: $5k → 14%PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: $500 → 11%TIGER WOODS FOUNDATION: $100k → 10%CHILDREN'S ACTION NETWORK: $1k → 14%INNER-CITY SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $7k → 17%LIFT INC (NETWORK FOR GOOD): $4k → 14%THE FIRST TEE (WORLD GOLF FOUNDATION): $150k → 11%NJTL OF TRENTON: $5k → 11%SHANE'S INSPIRATION (INCLUSION MATTERS): $2k → 14%NEW YORK ACADEMY OF ART: $1k → 17%FRIENDS OF THE GLOBAL FIGHT AGAINST AIDS TUBERCULOSIS & MALARIA: $25k → 14%THE GREATER LOS ANGELES ZOO ASSOCIATION: $5k → 14%COMMUNITY WORD PROJECT (NYCHARITIESORG): $3k → 17%THE GREATER LOS ANGELES ZOO ASSOCIATION: $5k → 14%CENTER THEATRE GROUP: $5k → 14%THE NEST SCHOOL: $15k → 14%THE NEST SCHOOL: $7k → 14%VISION TO LEARN: $500 → 14%GOOD FOUNDATION (FKA BABY BUGGY): $100k → 14%GOOD FOUNDATION (FKA BABY BUGGY): $1k → 14%GOOD FOUNDATION (FKA BABY BUGGY): $1k → 14%HAMMER MUSEUM: $20k → 14%HAMMER MUSEUM: $20k → 14%UCLA FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS: $250 → 14%VENICE FAMILY CLINIC: $1k → 14%LIFT INC (NETWORK FOR GOOD): $4k → 14%PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $4k → 14%CHILDREN MENDING HEARTS: $660 → 14%ST BALDRICKS FOUNDATION: $5k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
NY
MA
OH
NJ
CT
CA
DC
GA
FL
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.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$916k · 8 repeat orgs$384k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +102% since the first grant, against +21% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
18

Total granted

$916k
$211k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+102%
+21%

Still filing today

75%
61%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2018, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $173k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18
HealthEducationArts & CultureYouth DevelopmentAnimalsInternationalOther
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

  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc
    2× · 2017–2018 · $501k · revenue +162%
  • TW
    TIGER WOODS FOUNDATION INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $200k · revenue +102%
  • TN
    THE NEST SCHOOL
    2× · 2017–2018 · $22k · revenue ×21

Funded once

  • TF
    THE FIRST TEE PALM BEACHES (WORLD GOLF FOUNDATION)
    one grant, 2017 · $150k
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF THE GLOBAL FIGHT AGAINST AIDS TUBERCULOSIS AND MALARIA
    one grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue -77%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICAgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $15k · revenue +62%
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
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

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.

Education
2
Academy of Television Arts and Sciences

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…

—
3
American Association for the Advancement of Science

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,…

Science & Tech
4
United States Naval Institute

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.

—
5
The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel

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…

Community Improvement
6
Boston Architectural College

The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.

—
7
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
8
Association of California School Administrators

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.

—
9
Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Foundation

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.

Arts & Culture
10
University of New Haven

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…

Education
11
The American Institute of Architects

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.

—
12
Furman University

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.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tiger Woods Foundation Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

24 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
24/24
Grantees still filing
18/24
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $501,000 · HealthDana-Farber Cancer Institute IncFRIENDS OF THE GLOBAL FIGHT AGAINST AIDS TUBERCULOSIS AND MALARIA: $25,000 · Health+2 more: $1,500 · HealthTHE FIRST TEE (WORLD GOLF FOUNDATION): $150,000 · OtherTHE FIRST TEE (WORLD GOLF FOUNDATION)THE FIRST TEE PALM BEACHES (WORLD GOLF FOUNDATION): $150,000 · OtherTHE FIRST TEE PALM BEACHES (WORLD GOLF F…GOOD FOUNDATION (FKA BABY BUGGY): $125,583 · OtherGOOD FOUNDATION (FKA BABY BUGGY)+17 more: $47,045 · Other+17 moreTIGER WOODS FOUNDATION INC: $200,080 · EducationTIGER WOODS FOUNDATI…THE NEST SCHOOL: $21,650 · EducationTHE NEST SCHOOLUCLA FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Education+1 more: $500 · EducationARMAND HAMMER MUSEUM OF ART AND CULTURAL CENTER INC: $40,000 · Arts & CultureCENTER THEATRE GROUP OF LOS ANGELES: $5,000 · Arts & CultureBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA: $15,000 · Youth DevelopmentCHILDREN MENDING HEARTS INC: $660 · Youth DevelopmentGREATER LOS ANGELES ZOOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION: $10,000 · AnimalsAQUARIUM OF THE PACIFIC CORPORATION: $2,500 · AnimalsAMERICA-ISRAEL ECONOMIC FORUM: $5,000 · International+1 more: $100 · International
Health$527,500Other$472,628Education$232,230Arts & Culture$45,000Youth Development$15,660Animals$12,500International$5,100

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $501,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTIGER WOODS FOUNDATION INC: $200,080 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetARMAND HAMMER MUSEUM OF ART AND CULTURAL CENTER INC: $40,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE GLOBAL FIGHT AGAINST AIDS TUBERCULOSIS AND MALARIA: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetTHE NEST SCHOOL: $21,650 over 2y, 12% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHEATRE FORWARD INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetGREATER LOS ANGELES ZOOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUCLA FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINNER CITY SCHOLARSHIP FUND INC: $7,400 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL JUNIOR TENNIS & LEARNING OF TRENTON INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetST BALDRICK'S FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCENTER THEATRE GROUP OF LOS ANGELES: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAQUARIUM OF THE PACIFIC CORPORATION: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVENICE FAMILY CLINIC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNEW YORK ACADEMY OF ART: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHILDREN MENDING HEARTS INC: $660 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetThe Trustees of Princeton University: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $400 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSave The Children Federation Inc: $100 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

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.

Morgan Stanley Global…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust IncIN10.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Orszag Foundation Inc Fka the Jonathan Orszag Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Orszag Foundation Inc Fka the Jonathan Orszag Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 11%
  • 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
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
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 36 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 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Orszag Foundation Inc Fka the Jonathan Orszag’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home