· Private foundation
The Perls Foundation Katherine Perls Et Al Trustees
Its FY2024 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 FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k7 grants · $15k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $65k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $261k
- $250k+2 grants · $679k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| KNOWLEDGE ECOLOGY INTERNATIONAL | $407,000 |
| PUBLIC CITIZEN FOUNDATION | $272,000 |
| STICHTING HEALTH ACTION | $161,000 |
| UNIVERSITIES ALLIED FOR ESSENTIAL MEDICINES | $100,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC | $40,000 |
| FOOD FOR FREE INC | $25,000 |
| RAILS-TO-TRAILS CONSERVANCY | $7,300 |
| AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION | $2,000 |
| HAYMARKET PEOPLES FUND | $2,000 |
| INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES | $2,000 |
| CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION | $1,000 |
| GLOBE SANTA FUND | $500 |
| THE BUXTON SCHOOL | $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 US giving — 89% of grant dollars ($6.8M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 11% that went abroad ($811k) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $485k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% 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.
Beyond the US — 11% of all-years giving ($811k)
4 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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 +13% since the first grant, against -84% for the ones you funded once.
17 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down.
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 FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- PCPUBLIC CITIZEN FOUNDATION INC7× · 2017–2024 · $2.2M · revenue +13%
- FFFOOD FOR FREE COMMITTEE INC8× · 2017–2024 · $200k · revenue +204%
RAILS TO TRAILS CONSERVANCY8× · 2017–2024 · $45k · revenue +35%
Funded once
- IFINSTITUTE FOR KNOWLEDGE ECOLOGYone grant, 2017 · $450k
- UEUAEM EUROPE EV FBO FUNDING ACCESS TO MEDICINES PROJECTSone grant, 2020 · $55k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2018 · $30k
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 union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
The r street institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public-policy research organization ("think tank"). our mission is to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government. (continued on…
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
The Breakthrough Institute is a research center that identifies and promotes technological solutions to environmental and human development challenges.
Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.
To promote free expression, academic freedom, viewpoint diversity, and open scientific inquiry in the MIT community
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
Iatp works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.
To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.
To partner with individuals and organizations to access, organize, and share data that inspires action that restores our environment.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Institute for Policy Studies and the most unlike its peers is Latino Stem Alliance. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 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. 12 of the 26 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 KNOWLEDGE ECOLOGY INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC CITIZEN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITIES ALLIED FOR ESSENTIAL MEDICINES NORTH AMERICA CORP ↗
- Who funds FOOD FOR FREE COMMITTEE INC ↗
- Who funds RAILS TO TRAILS CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES ↗
- Who funds HAYMARKET PEOPLE'S FUND INC ↗
- Who funds LATINO STEM ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds The Food Project Inc ↗
- Who funds BUXTON SCHOOLINC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ↗
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: Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Perls Foundation Katherine Perls Et Al Trustees 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.
- Charles River Watershed Association Inc — 8% of income from government
- Food for Free Committee Inc — 3% 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.