Skip to content
Center for Internet Security Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Center for Internet Security Inc

The mission of the center for internet security is to enhance the security readiness and response of public and private sector entities, with a commitment to excellence through collaboration.

$548k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$300k
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, FY2019 to 2025.

Public Safety & Disaster$1.5MEducation$528kHuman Services$147kScience & Tech$125kPublic Benefit$125kCommunity Improvement$100kSocial Science$25kCivil Rights$25kOther$0
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $248k
  • $250k+1 grant · $300k
$300,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$84M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GLOBAL CYBER ALLIANCE INC$300,000
PURDUE UNIVERSITY$248,240
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 (FY22–24, $147k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%WE THE VETERANS FOUNDATION: $84k → 14%WE THE VETERANS FOUNDATION: $33k → 14%WE THE VETERANS FOUNDATION: $30k → 14%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
CA
CO
VA
MD
DE
TN
DC
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
Citizens Commission On National Security
Public Benefit
2
National Cyber Security Alliance

To create a more secure, interconnected world.

Public Benefit
3
National Cyber Partnership Inc

Offering real-world training at the undergraduate and graduate levels for veterans and others for high-skill cyber jobs.

Education
4
Cyber Defense Center

Providing cyber security for goverment and school agencies

Science & Tech
5
Cybersecurity Association Inc

The purpose of the Cybersecurity Association is to grow and serve the cybersecurity ecosystem through advocacy, education, and building community. We are a trusted community for companies and organizations that view cybersecurity as a…

Community Improvement
6
Maritime Transportation System Information Sharing & Analysis Center

The corporation promotes and facillitates maritime cybersecurity information sharing, awareness, training and collaboration efforts between private and public sector members to effectively improve cyber risk management across the entire…

Community Improvement
7
National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance

The national cyber-forensics & training alliance (ncfta) is a non-profit corporation focused on identifying, mitigating, and neutralizing cyber crime threats globally. the ncfta was created by industry and academia for the sole purpose of…

Science & Tech
8
Applied Computer Security Associate Inc
—
9
Cyber Conflict Studies Association

CCSA is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to promoting and leading a diversified research agenda in the field of cyber conflict. To achieve this, CCSA promotes and leads international intellectual development efforts to advance…

—
10
Center for Internet Security Inc

The mission of the center for internet security is to enhance the security readiness and response of public and private sector entities, with a commitment to excellence through collaboration.

Public Benefit
11
Technology Policy Institute
International
12
Cyberhawaii

Cyberhawaii, an affiliate of cyberusa, is committed to creating a whole of community approach that expands awareness and educates about cyber risks and the need to be vigilant. it supports the development of educational and workforce…

Science & Tech
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Cybersecurity Center; the most unlike its peers is Task Force Butler Institute. 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

10 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. 10 of the 12 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
4/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GLOBAL CYBER ALLIANCE INC: $1,500,000 · Public Safety & DisasterGLOBAL CYBER ALLIANCE INC+1 more: $25,000 · Public Safety & DisasterWomen In Cyber Security: $250,000 · EducationWomen In Cyb…WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC: $30,000 · EducationWILLIAM J BR…NATIONAL CYBERSECURITY CENTER: $125,000 · Public BenefitNATIONAL CY…SECURE THE VILLAGE: $125,000 · Public BenefitSECURE THE …Task Force Butler Institute: $25,000 · Public BenefitTask Force …TRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY: $248,240 · OtherTRUSTEES OF…VETERANS FIGHTING FASCISM INC: $25,000 · OtherVETERANS FI…We the Veterans Foundation: $146,500 · Human ServicesNational Fusion Center Association: $100,000 · Community ImprovementCARROLL TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL INC: $20,000 · Community Improvement
Public Safety & Disaster$1,525,000Education$280,000Public Benefit$275,000Other$273,240Human Services$146,500Community Improvement$120,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGLOBAL CYBER ALLIANCE INC: $1,500,000 over 7y, 5.2% of budgetWomen In Cyber Security: $250,000 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetWe the Veterans Foundation: $146,500 over 3y, 7.9% of budgetNATIONAL CYBERSECURITY CENTER: $125,000 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetSECURE THE VILLAGE: $125,000 over 1y, 90% of budgetNational Fusion Center Association: $100,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetWILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTask Force Butler Institute: $25,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetSECURE COMMUNITY NETWORK INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCARROLL TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL INC: $20,000 over 1y, 5.1% 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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA3.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Center for Internet Security Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Center for Internet Security Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–5%
    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 12 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 Center for Internet Security’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