How much did Adobe Foundation grant in FY2024?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 45% of Adobe Foundation’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2021

expenditure responsibilitycoviddigitalindiarightssan jose

2022

participation eaicohort activitieseuropeapproachfreedomeai cohortlearning

2023

disaster reliefstaff trainingglobalspecific focusstem experientialexperiential educationeducation learning

2024

editorsstudiofacility spacescreatenmafilmcreative

2025

museumartrightssan jose

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 42 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k3 grants · $16k
$10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$50k–250k7 grants · $793k
$250k+31 grants · $28M

$500,000

Median grant

States reached

$18M

Total assets

Largest grants

VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM$2,105,186
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC$2,000,000
THE TOWER FOUNDATION OF SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY$2,000,000
WINSTON-SALEM STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INCORPOR$2,000,000
BOWIE STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION$2,000,000
NAMI NATIONAL$1,500,000
EQUALITY NOW INC$1,000,000
OUTRIGHT ACTION INTERNATIONAL$1,000,000
DISABILITY RIGHTS FUND INC$1,000,000
THE LONDON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$1,000,000
EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE$1,000,000
ASIAN LAW CAUCUS$1,000,000
THURGOOD MARSHALL COLLEGE FUND INC$1,000,000
FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE$1,000,000
KHAN ACADEMY INC$995,000

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY21–24, $1.5M) land where the poverty rate runs at 10% — the area typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

74%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$51M · 24 repeat orgs$18M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +93% since the first grant, against +38% for the ones you funded once.

24 repeat relationships — 23 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 17 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$51M

$11M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+93%

+38%

Still filing today

71%

63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6.8M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Arts & CultureInternationalEducationCivil RightsCommunity ImprovementHealthOther

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

HR
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC
3× · 2021–2024 · $6.0M · revenue +22%
OA
OUTRIGHT ACTION INTERNATIONAL
3× · 2021–2024 · $3.0M · revenue +461%
FN
FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
3× · 2021–2024 · $3.0M · revenue +628%

Funded once

MO
MUSEUM OF MODERN ART
one grant, 2023 · $2.0M · revenue -16%
IR
INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE
one grant, 2022 · $1.0M
DH
DESTINATION HOME SVgraduated
one grant, 2021 · $1.0M · revenue +38%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

Inspire diverse audiences through exhibitions, education, publications & collections.

Arts & Culture

Jobs with Justice San Francisco

A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…

Employment

Silicon Valley Defense Working Group Co

Silicon Valley Defense Group convenes experts in technology, investment, and government for discussions on how to better collaborate between the various groups. The comments and topics are then published on our website to help educate and…

Education

San Jose State University

The san jose state university research foundation is an auxiliary organization of san jose state university and the california state university system. the foundation's mission is to advance the welfare of the university and assist in…

Education

Unitedly

Unitedly is a nonprofit organization based in San Mateo County, California. Unitedly was established to ensure Asian families and communities have access to equitable opportunities and resources to thrive in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Human Services

San Francisco Public Press

The mission of the San Francisco Public Press is to enrich civic life in San Francisco by delivering public-interest journalism to broad and diverse audiences through print and interactive media not supported by advertising. The San…

Education

The American Institute of Architects

The AIA California, in collaboration with local components, is the voice of the architectural profession.

—

Kqed Inc

Inform, inspire, involve

Arts & Culture

Witness Inc

Witness helps people use video and technology to protect and defend human rights. the organization operates globally. witness' global team designs solutions, provides guidance, and co-develops strategies that enable human rights defenders…

International

San Francisco Transit Riders

San Francisco Transit Riders is the city's rider-based grassroots advocate forworld-class transit. Together with our members we work for an excellent,affordable, and growing public transit system because it is essential to thecharacter and…

Community Improvement

Silicon Valley Rising Action

Silicon Valley Rising Action takes on occupational segregation and income inequality with a comprehensive campaign to raise wages, create affordable housing, and build a tech economy that works for everyone.

—

Ucsf Foundation Investment Company

the organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the UCSF Foundation.

Education

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Human Rights Campaign Foundation and the most unlike its peers is The Tech Interactive. 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.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 33 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.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/45

the rest of the field

11%

206,164/1,819,520

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.

05the grantee network

45 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

45/45

Grantees still filing

37/45

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$34,385,868International$13,200,000Education$9,391,000Health$4,100,000Civil Rights$3,260,000Arts & Culture$3,002,500Human Services$1,500,000

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.

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.

Tides FoundationCA25.4× affinity13 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Tides Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · The Applied Materials Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Bright Funds Foundation · The Ford Foundation · Silicon Valley Creates · The San Francisco Foundation · Rotary Club of San Jose Foundation · Valley Health Foundation (Vhf) · Kla 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 organisation Adobe 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

2get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: CALIFORNIA EMERGING TECHNOLOGY FUND.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~21 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 7 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

7 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 47.2× since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 205184429 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on CALIFORNIA EMERGING TECHNOLOGY FUND, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 21 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 99% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to Adobe Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Adobe Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

Adobe Foundation

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

45 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Adobe Foundation?

More from the funding graph

Adobe Foundation

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

45 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Adobe Foundation?

More from the funding graph