· Private foundation
The Ruth & Robert Satter Charitable Trust
Its FY2026 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 FY2017–2026.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PRO PUBLICA | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| FAMILY HEALTH MINISTRIES | $5,000 |
| DEMOCRACY FORWARD | $5,000 |
| ALL SAINTS CHURCH | $4,000 |
| LEAGUE OF WOMENS VOTERS | $3,334 |
| WORKERS CENTER OF CENTRAL NEW YORK | $3,000 |
| INTERFAITH WORKS OF CNY | $3,000 |
| IMMIGRANT LEGAL ADVOCACY | $2,000 |
| SEATTLE LGBTQ CENTER | $2,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,667 |
| SHEPHERDS TABLE | $1,666 |
| FRIENDS OF PORTLAND EDUCATION | $1,333 |
| SEATTLE SYMPHONY | $1,333 |
| IPSWICH HUMANE GROUP | $1,112 |
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 (FY18–26, $28k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 70% 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +10% since the first grant, against +1% for the ones you funded once.
32 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2026, 23 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2026 (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 FY2026, 45% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $28k 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
- IWINTERFAITH WORKS OF CENTRAL NEW YORK3× · 2023–2025 · $28k · revenue +64%
Safe Passage8× · 2017–2025 · $14k · revenue +35%
PRO PUBLICA INC2× · 2025–2026 · $9k · revenue +48%
Funded once
- FBFOOD BANK OF CEN EAST NCone grant, 2021 · $14k
- SCSOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOC JUSTone grant, 2018 · $10k
- SESOUTHERN ENVIRON LAW CENTERone grant, 2017 · $9k
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.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
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.
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.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Our mission is to ensure that the people of greater boston benefit from a vibrant, resilient, and inclusive waterfront, harbor, and islands; these spaces are equitable, accessible, and adapted to climate change; and to ensure our public,…
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
The mission of the international women's forum is to advance women's leadership worldwide. iwf takes direct action to achieve our mission in three important ways. connect: our convenings provide networking and cutting-edge content…
Eastern national promotes the public's understanding and support of america's national parks and other public trust partners by providing quality educational experiences, products and services.
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
The aquarium of the pacific's mission is to instill a sense of wonder, respect, and stewardship for the pacific ocean, its inhabitants, and ecosystems.
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
The washington area community investment fund (wacif) is a nonprofit community loan fund focused on increasing equity and economic opportunity in the washington, dc area's underserved communities. wacif's mission is driven is driven by…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Open Door Cape Ann Food Pantry Inc and the most unlike its peers is Portland Esl Scholarship Fund. 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 38 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.
44 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 44 of the 81 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 INTERFAITH WORKS OF CENTRAL NEW YORK ↗
- Who funds FAMILY HEALTH MINISTRIES INC ↗
- Who funds Safe Passage ↗
- Who funds RAZOM INC ↗
- Who funds Portland ESL Scholarship Fund ↗
- Who funds PRO PUBLICA INC ↗
- Who funds SUNFLOWER OF PEACE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds SEATTLE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF PORTLAND ADULT EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds A TINY HOME FOR GOOD INC ↗
- Who funds IPSWICH HUMANE GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence ↗
- Who funds MIRIAM'S KITCHEN ↗
- Who funds IPSWICH CARING INC ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds DEMOCRACY FORWARD ↗
- Who funds THE JUSTICE EDUCATION CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds SYRACUSE MODEL NEIGHBORHOOD FACILITY INC ↗
- Who funds MERCY LEARNING CENTER OF BRIDGEPORT INC ↗
- Who funds RIO GRANDE FOOD PROJECT ↗
- Who funds THE OPEN DOOR CAPE ANN FOOD PANTRY INC ↗
- Who funds The Shepherds Table Inc ↗
- Who funds THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds Maine Association for New Americans ↗
- Who funds THE IPSWICH LOCAL NEWS 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: Maine Community Foundation Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc
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 Ruth & Robert Satter Charitable Trust 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.
- The Justice Education Center Inc — 100% of income from government
- Mercy Learning Center of Bridgeport Inc — 4% of income from government
- Chesapeake Bay Foundation Inc — 2% of income from government
- Massachusetts Audubon Society Inc — 1% 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 Ruth & Robert Satter Charitable Trust?
Find your warmest path to The Ruth & Robert Satter Charitable Trust 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.