Skip to content
Aspiration Aspirationtechorg at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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…

$1.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$596k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2025.

Youth Development$596kCivil Rights$303kScience & Tech$102kCommunity Improvement$95kEducation$75kEnvironment$68kRecreation & Sports$50kHuman Services$30kOther$0
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 13 grants below total $1,318,322, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,792,432 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $474,110 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k6 grants · $220k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $250k
  • $250k+2 grants · $848k
$50,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$9.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Busy Inc$595,890
Open Web Advocacy Inc$252,500
Northwestern University$50,000
Connect Humanity$50,000
Code for Science and Society$50,000
UC Santa Cruz$50,000
Exchange Point Institute$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
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its 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. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Forward Change: $30k → 10%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
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.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
NY
OR
CT
CA
DE
AZ
KS
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Open Contracting Partnership

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…

Public Benefit
2
Genomic Data Initiative
Science & Tech
3
Brave New Software Project Inc

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.

Civil Rights
4
Open Markets Institute

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.

Education
5
Collective Intelligence Project Inc

Our mission is to direct technological development towards the collective good.

Science & Tech
6
Open Imagery Network Inc

Empowering organizations and individuals globally with open ml and eo data, standards and tools to address the world's most critical international development challenges.

Science & Tech
7
Technology Policy Institute
International
8
Freenet Project Inc

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…

Civil Rights
9
Commoncrawl Foundation
Science & Tech
10
The Commons Inc

To partner with individuals and organizations to access, organize, and share data that inspires action that restores our environment.

—
11
Center for Democracy and Technology

Advocating for public policies that advance democratic values in the digital age.

Civil Rights
12
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists Inc

International consortium of investigative journalists, inc.'s (icij) mission is to show people how the world really works through stories that rock the world; forcing positive change.

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Code for Science & Society Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Busy Inc: $595,890 · OtherBusy IncOpen Web Advocacy Inc: $252,500 · OtherOpen Web Advocacy IncUC Santa Cruz: $50,000 · OtherUnfurl Futures LLC: $45,000 · Other+3 more: $35,447 · OtherOPEN ENVIRONMENTAL DATA INC: $67,508 · Science & TechOPEN ENVI…CODE FOR SCIENCE & SOCIETY INC: $50,000 · Science & TechCODE FOR …CONNECT HUMANITY: $50,000 · PhilanthropyGoodnation Foundation Inc: $28,500 · PhilanthropyExchange Point Institute: $50,000 · Civil RightsNorthwestern University: $50,000 · Recreation & SportsOPEN SOURCE COLLECTIVE: $46,427 · Membership BenefitForward Change: $30,000 · Human Services
Other$978,837Science & Tech$117,508Philanthropy$78,500Civil Rights$50,000Recreation & Sports$50,000Membership Benefit$46,427Human Services$30,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetOPEN ENVIRONMENTAL DATA INC: $67,508 over 2y, 6.9% of budgetCONNECT HUMANITY: $50,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetCODE FOR SCIENCE & SOCIETY INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetSUPERBLOOM DESIGN: $5,327 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetFRIENDS OF MAJAL INC: $5,120 over 1y, 0.6% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

New Venture FundThe Ford Foundation
New Venture FundDC15× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: New Venture Fund · The Ford Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Aspiration Aspirationtechorg funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Aspiration Aspirationtechorg. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Code for Science & Society Inc: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 15 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Aspiration Aspirationtechorg’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home