· Private foundation
The Rosenthal Family Foundation
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 $10k90 grants · $187k
- $10k–50k20 grants · $461k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $252k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS | $75,000 |
| UTAH FILM CENTER | $60,000 |
| LOS ANGELES REVIEW OF BOOKS | $60,000 |
| PEN AMERICA | $57,000 |
| MAGNUM FOUNDATION | $40,000 |
| CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING | $35,000 |
| WILDLIFE GUARDIANS | $35,000 |
| PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION | $35,000 |
| NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN & FAMILIES | $30,000 |
| EARTHWAYS FOUNDATION | $30,000 |
| CHICKEN & EGG FILMS INC | $26,200 |
| THE UCLA FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| FRIENDS OF THE LOS ANGELES FREE CLINIC | $25,000 |
| AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND LETTERS | $25,000 |
| LINCOLN CENTER THEATER | $25,000 |
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 (FY21–24, $77k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 98% 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.
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.
116 repeat relationships — 87 still active in FY2024, 29 since wound down; 26 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $158k 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
- UFUTAH FILM CENTER3× · 2022–2024 · $281k · revenue +79%
- LALOS ANGELES REVIEW OF BOOKS2× · 2023–2024 · $135k · revenue +21%
- WGWILDLIFE GUARDIANS4× · 2021–2024 · $135k · revenue +104%
Funded once
- UFUtah Film Centerone grant, 2020 · $251k
- UOUnion of Concerned Scientistsone grant, 2020 · $150k
- MHMAGIC HOUR FOUNDATIONone grant, 2021 · $150k
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 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…
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 organization is a non-partisan, membership based speakers' forum that connects business leaders, community members, and engaged individuals with shared interest in local, national, and global affairs. it provides an open and accessible…
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.
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.
The mission of the organization is to foster the development of creative individuals as writers and artists and to promote public appreciation of excellence in the literary and graphic arts by publishing a magazine containing fiction,…
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
To invest in america's finest artists and illuminate the value of artists to society.
To serve the public by producing world-class opera that preserves, promotes and advances the art form while embodying the diversity, spirit and artistic sensibility unique to los angeles. we envision an engaged and enlightened community in…
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,…
To distribute public affairs and other educational information in order to create an electronic bridge between californians and their public officials, and, in the process educate a new generation of voting citizens and civic leaders who…
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Dillon Henry 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 30 years old; the field is 21. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% 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.
163 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. 163 of the 310 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
- Who funds UTAH FILM CENTER ↗
- Who funds MAGNUM CULTURAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES REVIEW OF BOOKS ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE GUARDIANS ↗
- Who funds Americans for the Arts Inc ↗
- Who funds EARTHWAYS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds LIBERTY HILL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CHICKEN & EGG FILMS INC ↗
- Who funds THE VIVIAN BEAUMONT THEATERINC D/B/A LINCOLN CENTER THEATER ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND LETTERS ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON MONTHLY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds UCLA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HIGH COUNTRY NEWS ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE FREE CLINIC INC ↗
- Who funds PEN AMERICAN CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN FILM INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds CREATIVE VISIONS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PENTA MEDICAL RECYCLING CORP ↗
- Who funds Sundance Institute ↗
- Who funds COURAGE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE C3 ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF ROBINSON GARDENS INC ↗
- Who funds RepresentUs Education Fund ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RADIO ↗
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: Liberty Hill Foundation · California Community Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · The Annenberg Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Tides Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Ford Foundation · Clif Family Foundation · Weingart 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 Rosenthal 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.
- Chrysalis Center Inc — 93% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- Tulsa Community Foundation — 11% of income from government
- Silk Road Project Inc — 4% of income from government
- Sandy Hook Promise Foundation — 0% of income from government
- Connecticut College — 0% of income from government
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 0% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Rosenthal Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Rosenthal 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.