· Private foundation
Ziffrin Abbott Family 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 FY2023–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k13 grants · $15k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS EDUCATION FUND INC | $10,000 |
| OPEN TABLE INC | $2,500 |
| F L A G FLAG FOOTBALL INC | $2,000 |
| LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS LOTTE E SCHARFMAN MEMORIAL | $2,000 |
| MASSCREATIVE INC | $1,500 |
| AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES | $1,250 |
| BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY | $1,000 |
| LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS EDUCATION FUND | $1,000 |
| ACLU FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS INC | $1,000 |
| TRANSITMATTERS INC | $900 |
| IBIS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INC | $600 |
| PRO PUBLICA INC | $550 |
| MAKING OPPORTUNITY COUNT INC | $500 |
| DIGNITY MATTERS INC | $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 (FY23–25, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
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 +45% since the first grant, against -16% for the ones you funded once.
9 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 5 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, 38% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k 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
- OTOPEN TABLE INC3× · 2023–2025 · $5k · revenue +58%
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS EDUCATION FUND3× · 2023–2025 · $4k · revenue +45%
Dignity Matters Inc3× · 2023–2025 · $2k · revenue +51%
Funded once
- PSPER SCHOLAS INCone grant, 2023 · $400 · revenue -16%
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.
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
The organization's primary exempt purpose is to provide access to and conduct activities in furtherance of higher education.
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.
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,…
Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.
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.…
Wheaton college provides a transformative liberal arts education, combining theory and practice, for intellectually curious students within a collaborative and vibrant extended community and network that values and strives to create an…
Aauw advances gender equity for women and girls through research, education, and advocacy.
Lwvma, a nonpartisan organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy.
To promote the interests of the university of massachusetts amherst through programs, services and communications that develop and reinforce the bonds between the university and its alumni; to validate the value and alumni pride in the…
To promote free expression, academic freedom, viewpoint diversity, and open scientific inquiry in the MIT community
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Masscreative Inc and the most unlike its peers is Making Opportunity Count Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 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. 13 of the 16 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 OPEN TABLE INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS & SCIENCES ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds PRO PUBLICA INC ↗
- Who funds Dignity Matters Inc ↗
- Who funds F L A G FLAG FOOTBALL INC ↗
- Who funds MASSCREATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds MAKING OPPORTUNITY COUNT INC ↗
- Who funds ACLU FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS INC ↗
- Who funds BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds ONEGOAL ↗
- Who funds IBIS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INC ↗
- Who funds PER SCHOLAS 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: Boston Foundation Inc · American Tower Corporation Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Ziffrin Abbott 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.
- Making Opportunity Count Inc — 28% of income from government
- Masscreative Inc — 26% of income from government
- Brandeis University — 9% of income from government
- Ibis Reproductive Health Inc — 9% of income from government
- Open Table Inc — 7% of income from government
- American Academy of Arts & Sciences — 3% 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.