· Private foundation
The Yankee Springer Foundation
Its FY2025 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 FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k36 grants · $29k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $69k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| TEMPLE UNIVERSITY | $38,875 |
| AMACHI | $20,500 |
| EMPLOYEE CONNECTIONS | $10,000 |
| RAVINIA FESTIVAL | $5,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD | $4,000 |
| MAKOM SOLEL LAKESIDE | $2,980 |
| WOLOCOTT COLLEGE PREP | $2,591 |
| NORTHERN ILLINOIS FOOD BANK | $2,105 |
| ACLU | $2,000 |
| GREAT CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY | $1,500 |
| NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
| JEWISH COUNCIL ON URBAN AFFAIRS | $1,000 |
| GLOBAL GIVING | $1,000 |
| CHICAGO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS | $1,000 |
| WFMT | $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 (FY18–24, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, 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.
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.
56 repeat relationships — 30 still active in FY2025, 26 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 95% 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
- TUTemple University - Of The Commonwealth System of Higher Education6× · 2020–2025 · $283k · revenue +14%
- ECEMPLOYEE CONNECTIONS6× · 2018–2025 · $90k · revenue +336%
RAVINIA FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION5× · 2021–2025 · $43k · revenue +53%
Funded once
- ETENGLERT THEATER OF IOWA CITYone grant, 2019 · $71k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · $41k
- GGGLOBAL GIVING COMMUNITY CARBON TREESone grant, 2019 · $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 promote public health, safety, and welfare through the improvement of the quality and quantity of drinking water and the development and furtherance of understanding of the problems relating thereto.
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.
Pro publica is an independent, non-profit, pulitzer prize-winning newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. our work focuses exclusively on truly important stories. [see continuation on schedule o] we produce…
Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…
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 union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
To drive transformational adaptation to protect communities across the country from higher seas, stronger storms, and more frequent flooding.
See schedule onorc at the university of chicago conducts research and data science on critical societal issues to guide decision-making and the development of programs and public policy. our experts identify relationships and trends, and…
Food & water watch conducts extensive research and public education to ensure the food and water we consume is safe, accessible and sustainably produced. so we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of…
Building a movement of diverse, upwardly mobile college grads overcoming underemployment through digital skills and peer connections.
Arbor research collaborative for health is committed to improving patient care through research that shapes medical policies and practice. in particular, arbor research conducts health outcomes research on chronic disease and end-stage…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Action for Youth and the most unlike its peers is All Ages Music Portland dba Friends of Noise. 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 37 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.
73 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. 73 of the 139 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 Temple University - Of The Commonwealth System of Higher Education ↗
- Who funds EMPLOYEE CONNECTIONS ↗
- Who funds RAVINIA FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN ILLINOIS FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds GLOBALGIVING FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds IOWA PUBLIC RADIO INC ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO COALITION TO END HOMELESSNESS ↗
- Who funds GREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds Jewish Council on Urban Affairs ↗
- Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds WOMENS HEALTH PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds THE ENGLERT CIVIC THEATRE INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC ↗
- Who funds Chicago Youth Centers ↗
- Who funds WINDOW TO THE WORLD COMMUNICATIONS INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN FIRST FUND THE CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Shelter House Inc ↗
- Who funds CAYO ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE COLUMBIA WILLAMETTE INC ↗
- Who funds WILLOWWIND SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 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: Meyer Memorial Trust · The Oregon Community Foundation · The Collins Foundation · The Jackson Foundation · The Harold & Arlene Schnitzer Care Foundation · The Autzen Foundation · The Larson Legacy · The Reser Family Foundation · Maybelle Clark Macdonald Fund · Juan Young Trust · OCF Joseph E Weston Public Foundation · Marie Lamfrom Charitable Foundation Trust
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 Yankee Springer 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.
- Friends of Trees — 100% of income from government
- Hacienda Community Development Corporation — 48% of income from government
- Friends of Zenger Farm — 28% of income from government
- Ethos Inc — 13% of income from government
- Central City Concern — 10% of income from government
- Planned Parenthood of the Columbia Willamette Inc — 7% of income from government
- Growing Gardens — 6% of income from government
- All Ages Music Portland dba Friends of Noise — 1% of income from government
- Portland Art Museum — 1% of income from government
- Columbia Riverkeeper — 1% of income from government
- Oregon Public Broadcasting — 1% of income from government
- Tualatin Riverkeepers 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.