· Public charity
Aspiration Aspirationtechorg
To train charitable nonprofits in how to select and use technology in sustainable ways that increase impact; to design and run highly collaborative nonprofit technology events, focused on knowledge sharing and development of peer support networks; and to provide advice, strategy support, tools, and resources to charitable projects and…
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 70% of Aspiration Aspirationtechorg’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 13 grants below total $1,318,322 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,792,432 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $474,110 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k6 grants · $220k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $250k
- $250k+2 grants · $848k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Busy Inc | $595,890 |
| Open Web Advocacy Inc | $252,500 |
| Northwestern University | $50,000 |
| Connect Humanity | $50,000 |
| Exchange Point Institute | $50,000 |
| UC Santa Cruz | $50,000 |
| Code for Science and Society | $50,000 |
| Open Source Collective | $46,427 |
| Open Environmental Data Inc | $45,005 |
| Unfurl Futures LLC | $45,000 |
| Forward Change | $30,000 |
| Good Nation Foundation | $28,500 |
| New York University | $25,000 |
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 (FY25–25, $30k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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.
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.
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 enable one billion people to live in more equitable, prosperous and sustainable communities by helping partners across government, civil society and the private sector to design procurement reforms, build coalitions and co-create…
Brave New Software is dedicated to keeping the Internet open and decentralized. We build open source software tools that helps users access an uncensored internet, and create a more open and protected information infrastructure for us all.
The Freenet Project develops and maintains free, open-source software that enables decentralized communication and information sharing, with the goal of promoting privacy, freedom of expression, and access to information for the public…
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.
The Open Water Foundation develops and supports open source software and open data solutions to make better decisions about water resources.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
By providing universal access to air quality data, OpenAQ empowers a global community of changemakers to solve air inequality.
To partner with individuals and organizations to access, organize, and share data that inspires action that restores our environment.
The center for open science (cos) is dedicated to increasing openness, integrity, and reproducibility in scholarly research.
To advance and educate the public on biotechnology and other certain matters through scientific research.
OpenAIs mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Code for Science & Society Inc and the most unlike its peers is New York University. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 of the 15 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 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA INC ↗
- Who funds Exchange Point Institute ↗
- Who funds CONNECT HUMANITY ↗
- Who funds CODE FOR SCIENCE & SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds Northwestern University ↗
- Who funds OPEN SOURCE COLLECTIVE ↗
- Who funds Forward Change ↗
- Who funds Goodnation Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds New York University ↗
- Who funds SUPERBLOOM DESIGN ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF MAJAL 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: New Venture Fund · The Ford 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 Aspiration Aspirationtechorg 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.
- Code for Science & Society Inc — 2% 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.