· Private foundation
Wintman Family Charitable Trust B
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 FY2019–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k57 grants · $57k
- $10k–50k7 grants · $102k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| JCC | $30,000 |
| ABRAHAM INITIATIVES | $15,000 |
| JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE | $15,000 |
| PRO PUBLICA | $11,000 |
| FOOD BANK OF WM | $10,700 |
| NEW ISRAEL FUND | $10,000 |
| NATL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL | $10,000 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL & ENERGY STUDY INST | $5,000 |
| MASS HOUSING & SHELTER ALLIANCE | $5,000 |
| YIDDISH BOOK CENTER | $3,120 |
| RACHEL'S TABLE | $3,000 |
| CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY | $2,100 |
| BERKSHIRE IMMIGRANT CENTER | $2,000 |
| ACLU | $2,000 |
| NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT | $2,000 |
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 (FY19–25, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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 +38% since the first grant, against +24% for the ones you funded once.
81 repeat relationships — 55 still active in FY2025, 26 since wound down; 8 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, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $19k 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
PRO PUBLICA INC7× · 2019–2025 · $94k · revenue +64%- NRNonhuman Rights Project Inc7× · 2019–2025 · $47k · revenue +38%
- EAENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY STUDY INSTITUTE6× · 2019–2025 · $31k · revenue +38%
Funded once
- ECEVERGREEN COLLABORATIVEone grant, 2023 · $20k · revenue -12%
- JJEFone grant, 2020 · $10k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2022 · $5k
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.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
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.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
Iatp works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.
The climate institute is organized for the purpose of educating the general public and policy makers as to the gravity of potential climate change, exploring the policy implications of the latest scientific findings on climate modelling…
Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
The organization's mission is to engage in non partisan analysis of u.s. foreign policy in the middle east, with special emphasis on the middle east peace process, and to present policymakers in the united states, in the region and in the…
To research and develop centrist policy ideas.
Crisis group works to prevent and resolve deadly conflict around the world by informing and influencing the perceptions and actions of policymakers and other key conflict actors. to this end, we endeavour to talk to all sides and provide…
The brookings institution (brookings) is a nonprofit public policy organization that conducts in-depth, independent research that leads to new ideas for solving problems facing society at the local, national, and global level.…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Amnesty International of the Usa Inc and the most unlike its peers is Richmond Land Trust. 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 36 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) — 2% 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.
54 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. 54 of the 113 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 NEW ISRAEL FUND ↗
- Who funds PRO PUBLICA INC ↗
- Who funds THE ABRAHAM INITIATIVES INC ↗
- Who funds Nonhuman Rights Project Inc ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY STUDY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds EVERGREEN COLLABORATIVE ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds HEALING ACROSS THE DIVIDES INC ↗
- Who funds PITTSFIELD COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL OF THE USA INC ↗
- Who funds BERKSHIRE IMMIGRANT CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL YIDDISH BOOK CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds CAMFED USA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COMMON CAUSE EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds Pesticide Action Network North America ↗
- Who funds OPEN PANTRY COMMUNITY SERVICES 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: Berkshire Taconic Community Foundation Inc · Lee Bank Foundation Inc · Berkshire Bank Foundation Inc · Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts · Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Inc · Jane and Jack Fitzpatrick Trust · The Beveridge Family Foundation · Arbella Insurance Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · Jewish Communal Fund · Marguerite Jossel Charitable Foundation · Henrietta F Dexter Tuw-Dexter Ch
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 Wintman Family Charitable Trust B 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.
- Citizens' Housing and Planning Association Inc — 26% of income from government
- Volunteers in Medicine-Berkshires Inc — 10% of income from government
- Berkshire Immigrant Center Inc — 9% of income from government
- Drama Studio Incorporated — 2% of income from government
- The Trustees of Reservations — 2% of income from government
- National Yiddish Book Center Inc — 2% of income from government
- Special Olympics Massachusetts Inc — 1% of income from government
- Berkshire Natural Resources Council Inc — 1% of income from government
- Wesleyan University — 1% of income from government
- Berkshire Theatre Group Inc — 1% of income from government
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 0% of income from government
- Wounded Warrior Project Inc — 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.