How much did AUSTIN AND LAUREN FITE FOUNDATION grant in FY2020?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 44% of AUSTIN AND LAUREN FITE 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

2018

—

2019

centgirls

2020

vote

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

03FY2020 · 36 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2020

Under $10k8 grants · $27k
$10k–50k26 grants · $372k
$50k–250k2 grants · $145k

$10,000

Median grant

States reached

Total assets

Largest grants

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY$85,000
UT FOUNDATION SCHOLARSHIP$60,000
VOTERIDERS$40,000
ST JUDE CHILDRENS RESEARCH HOSPITAL$30,000
KECK SCHOOL OF MEDICINE$25,000
ACLU FOUNDATION$20,000
OUR D$20,000
WOMENS VOICE$20,000
LOS ANGELES PHILHARMONIC ASSOCIATIO$20,000
GALS$15,000
KEHILLAT ISRAEL$12,375
PLANNED PARENTHOOD$10,000
THE MIDNIGHT MISSION$10,000
ROCK THE VOTE$10,000
INDIANA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION$10,000

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 (FY18–20, $46k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14% — the area typically sits at 11%. 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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$2.5M · 31 repeat orgs$378k to everyone else

31 repeat relationships — 22 still active in FY2020, 9 since wound down; 14 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$2.5M

$234k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+48%

+92%

Still filing today

48%

50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $143k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EducationCivil RightsHuman ServicesEnvironmentPhilanthropyHealthOther

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

ST JUDE CHILDRENS RESEARCH HOSPITAL
3× · 2017–2020 · $90k · revenue +74%
V
VOTERIDERS
4× · 2017–2020 · $85k · revenue +2297%
MC
MERCY CORPS
4× · 2017–2020 · $40k · revenue +51%

Funded once

UO
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE FOUNDATION
one grant, 2018 · $60k
CH
CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL FOUNDATION
one grant, 2019 · $55k
AL
AMERICAN LEBANESE SYRIAN ASSOC CHARITIES
one grant, 2019 · $30k

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.

University of California

To raise and manage private funds to support uci's broader mission of excellence in teaching, research and public service.

Education

Ucla Alumni Association

The mission of the ucla alumni association is to enrich the lives of alumni and involve them in the future of ucla.

Education

Public Policy Institute of California

Inform and improve public policy in california through independent, objective, nonpartisan research

—

CalMatters

To improve Californias democracy by making its government more transparent and accountable and giving Californians the information they need to understand and engage with that government.

Civil Rights

The Uc Davis Foundation

The mission of the uc davis foundation is to secure, steward and manage private gifts for uc davis.

Education

Lawfare Institute

Produce scientific content on lawfare and the analysis of emblematic cases of the phenomenon through publication of the lawfare website, podcasts and related media.

Public Benefit

Ucla Foundation

The mission of the ucla foundation is to actively promote philanthropy and manage donated resources for the advancement of ucla.

Education

The Salk Institute for Biological Studies

Basic research in the following: molecular biology & genetics, neuroscience, and plant biology.

Science & Tech

Los Angeles Review of Books

The los angeles review of books is a non profit multimedia literary, educational, intellectual, and cultural arts project that combines serious book reviews and essays with the evolving technologies of the internet, promoting and…

Education

American Law Institute

The institute's mission, as set out in its certificate of incorporation, is to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to…

Crime & Legal

The Hearst Foundation

—

Npr Foundation

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is St Jude Children's Research Hospital and the most unlike its peers is Project High Hopes. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 32 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 24% 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 12% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/34

the rest of the field

12%

22,290/186,944

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

34 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)

34/34

Grantees still filing

24/34

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$1,315,718Education$951,000Health$328,000Civil Rights$123,300Arts & Culture$53,500Human Services$46,000International$45,000

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.

California Community FoundationCA19.9× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: California Community Foundation · The Annenberg Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund · Liberty Hill Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Tides Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · The San Francisco Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Impactassetsinc

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 AUSTIN AND LAUREN FITE 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

0get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%

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: GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

medium risk

~4 months of operating runway; revenue contracted over 7 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

7 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 432058202 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 GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, 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

WatchFinancial stability— Roughly 4 months of cash on hand.
WatchSustained operations— Filing through 2025; revenue contracted over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 51% 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 Austin and Lauren Fite Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Austin and Lauren Fite 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.

AUSTIN AND LAUREN FITE 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

34 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Austin and Lauren Fite Foundation?

More from the funding graph

AUSTIN AND LAUREN FITE 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

34 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Austin and Lauren Fite Foundation?

More from the funding graph