Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Stephens Naphtal Foundation Inc

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.

$367k
Granted FY2017
7
Grants FY2017
4
States reached
$175k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of The Stephens Naphtal Foundation Inc’s FY2022 grant dollars went to Massachusetts Institute Of Technology, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2022 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2017, the last year The Stephens Naphtal Foundation Inc named its own grantees at scale: 5 organizations, $367k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

5
’17
1
’18
1
’19
0
’20
0
’21
0
’22

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0172% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2022.

Education$4.2MHealth$1.0MRecreation & Sports$175kCrime & Legal$40kCivil Rights$40kOther$0
02FY2017 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2017

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $100k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $267k
$20,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$225k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
US Figure Skating$175,000
Community Preparatory School$91,800
LeGal$20,000
CAIR-NY$20,000
Centro Legal de la Raza$20,000
Youth Represent$20,000
Individual grant recipient$20,000
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 (FY17–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 24% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Massachusetts Institute of Technolo: $2.0M → 8%Massachusetts General Hospital: $1.0M → 16%Centro Legal de la Raza: $20k → 10%CAIR-NY: $20k → 13%Youth Represent: $20k → 17%Community Preparatory School: $50k → 14%US Figure Skating: $175k → 9%Massachusetts Institute of Technolo: $667k → 8%ACLU Massachusetts: $55k → 16%CAIR-NY: $20k → 13%LeGal: $20k → 17%Community Preparatory School: $92k → 14%Massachusetts Institute of Technolo: $667k → 8%ACLU Massachusetts: $50k → 16%LeGal: $20k → 17%Massachusetts Institute of Technolo: $666k → 8%NYSP LC: $20k → 17%Massachusetts Institute of Technolo: $100k → 8%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.
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.

21%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$327k · 4 repeat orgs$1.2M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +200% since the first grant, against +56% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2017, 1 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2017 (too recent to call). Read against FY2017, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
5

Total granted

$327k
$1.2M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+200%
+56%

Still filing today

50%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.0M went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20
Crime & LegalEducationCivil RightsOther
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

  • COMMUNITY PREPARATORY SCHOOL
    2× · 2017–2019 · $142k · revenue +200%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2018–2019 · $105k
  • L
    LeGal
    2× · 2017–2018 · $40k

Funded once

  • MG
    Massachusetts General Hospital
    one grant, 2020 · $1.0M
  • US
    UNITED STATES FIGURE SKATING ASSOCIATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $175k · revenue +64%
  • YOUTH REPRESENT INC
    one grant, 2017 · $20k · revenue +6%
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
04the grantee network

6 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 6 of the 10 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
6/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $4,100,000 · EducationMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCOMMUNITY PREPARATORY SCHOOL: $141,800 · EducationMassachusetts General Hospital: $1,000,000 · OtherMassachusetts General Hosp…UNITED STATES FIGURE SKATING ASSOCIATION: $175,000 · OtherUNITED STATES FIGURE SKATI…Individual grant recipient: $105,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient+2 more: $60,000 · OtherCOUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS OF NEW YORK: $40,000 · Civil RightsYOUTH REPRESENT INC: $20,000 · Crime & LegalCENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA: $20,000 · Crime & Legal
Education$4,241,800Other$1,340,000Civil Rights$40,000Crime & Legal$40,000

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 budgetMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $4,100,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED STATES FIGURE SKATING ASSOCIATION: $175,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetCOMMUNITY PREPARATORY SCHOOL: $141,800 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetCOUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS OF NEW YORK: $40,000 over 2y, 5.0% of budgetYOUTH REPRESENT INC: $20,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetCENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA: $20,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

American Online Giving Foundation IncDE8.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation 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 Stephens Naphtal Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Stephens Naphtal Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 35%
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 35% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
3report 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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to The Stephens Naphtal Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to The Stephens Naphtal Foundation Inc 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.

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 10 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 2017, released 2017. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record but names no grant recipient in the published copy, so the figures above are from FY2017, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Stephens Naphtal’s filings →

More from the funding graph