· Private foundation
The Stephen a and Patricia H Oxman 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 $10k5 grants · $12k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $16k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PRINCETON UNIVERSITY | $15,600 |
| AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE INTL COMMISSION OF JURISTS | $5,000 |
| AMERICAN TRUST FOR OXFORD UNIVERSITY | $3,000 |
| COMMUNITY CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH | $2,000 |
| MILLBURN-SHORT HILLS VOLUNTEER FIRST AID SQUAD | $1,000 |
| CCF SCHOLARSHIP FUND | $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 human-services grants (FY17–17, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 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.
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 +123% since the first grant, against +25% for the ones you funded once.
11 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 1 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; $5k 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
The Trustees of Princeton University7× · 2017–2024 · $62k · revenue +5%- ATAMER TR FOR OXFORD UNIV & EASTMAN 067381-0008× · 2017–2024 · $26k · revenue +34%
- THThe Hastings Center Inc4× · 2018–2022 · $18k · revenue +64%
Funded once
- VAVOLCKER ALLIANCE INCone grant, 2021 · $15k · revenue -40%
- AAASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE - AAJC INCone grant, 2023 · $5k
ISLES INCgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue +158%
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.
Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.
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,…
Organization's mission: boston university is an international, comprehensive, private research university, committed to educating students to be reflective, resourceful individuals ready to live, adapt, and lead in an interconnected world.…
Education, research, medical services and other public services.
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…
Dartmouth College educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership, through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge.
The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
The principal objects of the University are the advancement of learning by teaching and research, and its dissemination by every means. We work as one Oxford bringing together our staff, students and alumni, our colleges, faculties,…
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 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…
Wpi transforms lives, turns knowledge into action to confront global challenges, and revolutionizes stem through distinctive and inclusive education, projects and research. (http://www.wpi.edu/about/mission.html)
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is New York Landmarks Conservancy Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Hope for Health Inc. 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 48 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) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 2% 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.
26 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. 26 of the 34 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 The Trustees of Princeton University ↗
- Who funds AMER TR FOR OXFORD UNIV & EASTMAN 067381-000 ↗
- Who funds The Hastings Center Inc ↗
- Who funds VOLCKER ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds Integrate Health Inc ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MILLBURN SHORT HILLS VOLUNTEER FIRST AID SQUAD INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURIST ↗
- Who funds ISLES INC ↗
- Who funds STOWE LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds PREP FOR PREP ↗
- Who funds PRINCETON CANNON DIAL ELM FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds The HOPE for Health Inc ↗
- Who funds Yale University ↗
- Who funds American Forests ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK LANDMARKS CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds Trustees of Tufts College ↗
- Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC ↗
- Who funds LUPUS RESEARCH ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds TRI-COUNTY SCHOLARSHIP FUND ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF NEW COLLEGE LTD ↗
- Who funds THE ABANA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY 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: National Philanthropic Trust · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Stephen a and Patricia H Oxman 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Isles Inc — 21% of income from government
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Yale University — 12% of income from government
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 11% of income from government
- Stowe Land Trust — 10% 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.