· Public charity
American Edge
The organization is established primarily to further the common good and general welfare of u.s.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $8k
- $10k–50k17 grants · $240k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| USPAACC (c3) | $40,000 |
| FINANCIAL SERVICES INNOVATION COALITION | $35,000 |
| CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM | $15,000 |
| ARIZONA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE | $15,000 |
| SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP COUNCIL | $15,000 |
| TECNA | $10,000 |
| HISPANIC HERITAGE FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| SER JOBS FOR PROGRESS NATIONAL | $10,000 |
| US MINORITY CHAMBER OF CONGRESS FDTN | $10,000 |
| PARTNERSHIP FOR INNOVATION & EMPOWERMENT | $10,000 |
| USPAACC | $10,000 |
| LATINO COALITION | $10,000 |
| NATIONAL BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE | $10,000 |
| TRADE ALLIANCE TO PROMOTE PROSPERITY | $10,000 |
| MADISON SERVICES GROUP INC | $10,000 |
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 (FY20–24, $80k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 72% 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.
17 repeat relationships — 15 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $60k 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
- SBSMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP COUNCIL4× · 2020–2024 · $60k · revenue +56%
- CFCENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM4× · 2020–2024 · $60k · revenue +18%
- FSFinancial Services Innovation Coalition FSIC4× · 2020–2024 · $58k · revenue +217%
Funded once
- ACATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES INCgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $200k · revenue +62%
- SRSmarter Regulationone grant, 2023 · $126k · 53% of their budget
- CECOMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTEgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $33k · revenue +27%
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.
Ncapec is the only u.s. business association focused exclusively on facilitating american private sector input to the apec process. programs typically feature discussions between business, government and academia on key trade and economic…
The American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce has emerged as a firewall against government overreach and a beacon for common sense. We advocate for policies that will extend rather than extinguish the American experiment and ensure that…
Ipc is a global trade association dedicated to furthering the competitive excellence and financial success of its members, who are participants in the electronics industry. in pursuit of these objectives, ipc will devote resources to…
The national foundation for american policy is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to public policy research on trade, immigration, and other issues of national importance. the organization seeks to expand the debate over the…
Multi-sector, multi-state voice of business advocating on 5 key policies pillars.
The united states china business council's primary purpose is to represent american companies that do business in china and expand the us-china commercial relationship to the benefit of its membership and the us economy.
21st Century Policy Institute engages in public policy advocacy including advocacy to sustain a dialog around the critical importance of Americas economic and military strength and the related implications both domestically and abroad.
Chamber of progress is a center-left tech industry coalition devoted to a progressive society, economy, workforce, and consumer climate. we back public policies that will build a fairer, more inclusive country in which all people benefit…
With a commitment to free market principles, APC focuses on educating the public about conservative fiscal policies that foster job growth, a stronger economy, and increased opportunity for all Americans.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United States Pan Asian American Chamber of Commerce Education and the most unlike its peers is Market Institute Llc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
21 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. 21 of the 24 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 ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES INC ↗
- Who funds Smarter Regulation ↗
- Who funds SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM ↗
- Who funds Financial Services Innovation Coalition FSIC ↗
- Who funds ARIZONA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY ↗
- Who funds National Black Chamber of Commerce Inc ↗
- Who funds SER Jobs Progress National Inc ↗
- Who funds Hispanic Heritage Foundation ↗
- Who funds TRADE ALLIANCE TO PROTECT PROSPERITY ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES PAN ASIAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds Partnership for Innovation and Empowerment ↗
- Who funds AMERICANS FOR A BALANCED BUDGET INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PUERTO RICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ↗
- Who funds US PAN ASIAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ↗
- Who funds THE LEXINGTON INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds MARKET INSTITUTE LLC ↗
- Who funds WOMEN IMPACTING PUBLIC POLICY INC ↗
- Who funds THE LATINO COALITION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Technology Councils of North America ↗
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: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America · American Online Giving Foundation Inc
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 American Edge 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.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to American Edge?
Find your warmest path to American Edge 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.