· Private foundation
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k6 grants · $32k
- $10k–50k16 grants · $466k
- $50k–250k300 grants · $45M
- $250k+269 grants · $129M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Neo Philanthropy | $2,166,700 |
| Social Science Research Council | $2,000,000 |
| National Center for Civic Innovation | $2,000,000 |
| International Rescue Committee Inc | $2,000,000 |
| Neo Philanthropy | $1,750,000 |
| Common Sense Media | $1,550,000 |
| US Chamber of Commerce Foundation | $1,500,000 |
| Bard College | $1,200,000 |
| Institute of International Education Inc | $1,200,000 |
| The Institute for Citizens & Scholars | $1,195,800 |
| Carnegie Corporation of New York | $1,185,873 |
| President and Fellows of Harvard College | $1,170,000 |
| NewSchools Venture Fund | $1,167,000 |
| Charter Fund Inc | $1,166,700 |
| National Education Opportunity Network | $1,166,700 |
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 US giving — 89% of grant dollars ($1.3B). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 11% that went abroad ($147M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $23.2M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 96% 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
Beyond the US — 11% of all-years giving ($147M)
33 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 6% of Carnegie Corporation of New York’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +26% since the first grant, against +7% for the ones you funded once.
810 repeat relationships — 328 still active in FY2025, 482 since wound down; 95 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $26M 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
NEO Philanthropy Inc9× · 2017–2025 · $47M · revenue +191%
NATIONAL CENTER FOR CIVIC INNOVATION IN9× · 2017–2025 · $25M · revenue +329% · 41% of their budget- CECARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE9× · 2017–2025 · $19M · revenue +23%
Funded once
- AIAFRICAN INSTITUTE FOR MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES NEXT EINSTEIN INITIATIVE FDN CAone grant, 2018 · $1.3M
- NANORTH AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR ONLINE LEARNINGone grant, 2017 · $1.3M · revenue -81%
- HAHeritage and Arts Foundationone grant, 2024 · $1.1M
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.
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
Aacsb international provides quality assurance of business school programs, the latest in business education intelligence, thought leadership, and learning and development services.
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…
As the largest association of independent schools, nais co-creates the future of education by uniting and empowering our community. we do this through thought leadership, research, creation and curation of resources, and direct…
The peterson institute for international economics (piie) is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening prosperity and human welfare in the global economy through expert analysis and practical…
The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.
To provide accurate, objective information and analysis on international strategic issues for legislators, diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business leaders, economists, the military, defense commentators, journalists,…
We provide exemplary interdisciplinary programs for a community of scholar-practitioners within a distributed learning model grounded in student-driven inquiry and leading to enhanced knowledge.
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.
To advance the practice of higher education attorneys for the benefit of the institutions they serve.
Golden gate university prepares individuals to lead and serve by providing high quality, practice-based educational programs in law, taxation, business and related professions - as a nonprofit institution - in an innovative and challenging…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Grantmakers for Education and the most unlike its peers is Anne Marie Deruyttere Indigenous Peoples Foundation. 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.
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 31 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) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.4% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
698 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. 698 of the 1,281 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL CENTER FOR CIVIC INNOVATION IN ↗
- Who funds CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Middlebury College ↗
- Who funds IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds NEW SCHOOLS FUND ↗
- Who funds The George Washington University ↗
- Who funds THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES ↗
- Who funds CHARTER FUND INC D/B/A CHARTER SCHOOL GROWTH FUND ↗
- Who funds MALDEF - MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND ↗
- Who funds THE HENRY L STIMSON CENTER ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES ↗
- Who funds CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING ↗
- Who funds COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS INC ↗
- Who funds The New York Public Library Astor Lenox and Tilden Foundations ↗
- Who funds NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds Learning Policy Institute ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds TRANSCEND INC ↗
- Who funds NEW PROFIT INC ↗
- Who funds Trustees of Tufts College ↗
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: Gates Foundation · Walton Family Foundation Inc · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Overdeck Family Foundation Inc · Michael & Susan Dell Foundation · New Profit Inc · Charles Koch Foundation · Democracy Fund Inc · Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation · The Joyce Foundation · Foundation to Promote Open Society · Charles Koch Institute
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 Carnegie Corporation of New York 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.
- Mercy Corps — 47% of income from government
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- Icivics Inc — 13% of income from government
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- The Trustees of the Stevens Institute of Technology — 12% of income from government
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 11% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Northeastern University — 7% of income from government
- Educational Testing Service — 6% of income from government
- Education Resource Strategies Inc — 4% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Middlebury College — 1% of income from government
- The Achievement Network Ltd — 1% of income from government
- Wgbh Educational Foundation — 1% of income from government
- The Bottom Line Inc — 0% of income from government
- Zearn — 0% of income from government
- The Center for Effective Philanthropy Inc — 0% of income from government
- University of Maryland Foundation Inc — 0% 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.