Skip to content
Cisco Systems Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Cisco Systems Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$18M
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$611k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0184% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Philanthropy$31MEducation$11MInternational$875kHousing & Shelter$427kYouth Development$299kEnvironment$275kHealth$265kScience & Tech$251kOther$0
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $1,221,200, the rows itemized in this filing. The $18,398,341 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $17,177,141 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.
$610,600
Median grant
1
States reached
$243M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
America Online Giving Foundation$610,600
America Online Giving Foundation$610,600
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 12% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%America Online Giving Foundation: $3.0M → 10%See Statement 18: $25.8M → 8%Bright Funds Foundation: $12.0M → 10%America Online Giving Foundation: $611k → 10%See Statement 19: $23.5M → 8%See Statement 19: $21.6M → 8%See Statement 18: $18.6M → 8%See Statement 19: $17.1M → 8%See Statement 18: $12.4M → 8%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.
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
Habitat for Humanity Inc

Habitat seeks to eliminate poverty housing from the world and to make decent shelter a matter of conscience and action.

—
2
Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco

Habitat for humanity greater san francisco builds and sustains affordable homeownership opportunities for families in marin, san francisco and san mateo counties.

—
3
Habitat for Humanity of Washington and Dodge Counties Wisconsin Inc

Habitat for humanity of washington dodge counties, wisconsin, inc. is a locally-run affiliate of habitat for humanity international, a nonprofit ecumenical christian housing ministry. habitat for humanity works in partnership with people…

—
4
Habitat for Humanity of Greater Los Angeles

Habitat for humanity of greater los angeles brings people together to build homes, communities and hope to realize our vision of a world where everyone has a decent place to live.

Housing & Shelter
5
Habitat for Humanity East Bay Silicon Valley

We believe everyone deserves a decent place to live. by building, preserving, and expanding fair access to affordable homeownership, habitat partners with people and families to build strong futures on the foundation of a stable home.

Housing & Shelter
6
Fort Collins Habitat for Humanity

Seeking to put god's love into action; habitat for humanity brings people together to build homes, communities, and hope to realize our vision of a world where everyone has a decent place to live. fort collins habitat for humanity adheres…

Housing & Shelter
7
Habitat for Humanity International Chemung County

Chemung county habitat is dedicated to eliminating substandard housing locally and worldwide through constructing, rehabilitating and preserving homes; by advocating for fair and just housing policies; and by providing training and access…

—
8
Earthenable Inc

Earthenable works to solve the housing crisis in africa by revolutionizing the rural housing industry through innovative, affordable, and sustainable home-building solutions. its mission is to create healthier, safer, and climate-resilient…

International
9
Habitat for Humanity of Minnesota Inc

Habitat for humanity brings people together to build homes, community, and hope. through advocacy, collaboration, and leadership, hfh-mn advances the work of minnesota's habitat for humanity affiliates to create and preserve affordable…

—
10
Greater Green Bay Habitat for Humanity

Habitat brings people together to build homes, communities and hope. the organization seeks out qualified applicants starting with a yearly application process for individuals and families to apply. the applicant must meet 3 basic…

—
11
Habitat for Humanity - Midohio

Seeking to put god's love into action, habitat for humanity-midohio brings people together to inspire hope, build homes, empower families, and develop communities.

—
12
Habitat for Humanity of La Plata County Inc

To build decent, affordable homes in partnership with families in need.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Habitat for Humanity of Wake County Inc; the most unlike its peers is Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation. 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

20 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 20 of the 72 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/20
Grantees still filing
13/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BRIGHT FUNDS FOUNDATION: $23,931,340 · PhilanthropyBRIGHT FUNDS FOUNDATIONAMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC: $3,610,600 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INCBENEFICENT TECHNOLOGY INC: $10,871,590 · Human ServicesBENEFICENT TECHNOLOGY INC+1 more: $100,000 · Human ServicesAmerica Online Giving Foundation: $3,610,600 · OtherAmerica Online G…Opportunity International ($300K for $500K from DAF): $300,000 · OtherMedic Mobile Inc: $250,000 · OtherLiving Goods (formerly InnoVision Shelter Network): $250,000 · Other+59 more: $2,332,683 · Other+59 moreCITIZEN SCHOOLS INC: $415,000 · EducationDream Catchers Inc: $15,000 · EducationUSHAHIDI INC: $225,000 · InternationalNETHOPE INC: $200,000 · Public Safety & DisasterINNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $150,000 · Social Science
Philanthropy$27,541,940Human Services$10,971,590Other$6,743,283Education$430,000International$225,000Public Safety & Disaster$200,000Social Science$150,000

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 budgetBRIGHT FUNDS FOUNDATION: $23,931,340 over 1y, 28% of budgetBENEFICENT TECHNOLOGY INC: $10,871,590 over 1y, 79% of budgetAMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC: $3,610,600 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetCITIZEN SCHOOLS INC: $415,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetUSHAHIDI INC: $225,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetNETHOPE INC: $200,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetINNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $150,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetINTERNEWS NETWORK: $74,993 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPowerMyLearning Inc: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDream Catchers Inc: $15,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetMONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEast Bay Agency for Children: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSOUTH SHORE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF WAKE COUNTY INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAUSTIN HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTACOMAPIERCE COUNTY HABITAT FOR HUMANIT: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY CENTRAL ARIZONA: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY PHILADELPHIA INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

  • Who funds BRIGHT FUNDS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds BENEFICENT TECHNOLOGY INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds CITIZEN SCHOOLS INC ↗
  • Who funds USHAHIDI INC ↗
  • Who funds NETHOPE INC ↗
  • Who funds INNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds STUDENTS 2 SCIENCE INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAM INC ↗
  • Who funds INTERNEWS NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds PowerMyLearning Inc ↗
  • Who funds Dream Catchers Inc ↗

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.

Habitat for Humanity …Bright Funds Foundati…Silicon Valley Commun…Charity Bridge FundAmerican Express Foun…The San Francisco Fou…United Way WorldwideImpactassetsincThe US Charitable Gif…The Blackbaud Giving …Jpmorgan Chase Founda…Morgan Stanley Global…
Habitat for Humanity International IncGA15.6× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Habitat for Humanity International Inc · Bright Funds Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Charity Bridge Fund · American Express Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · United Way Worldwide · Impactassetsinc · The US Charitable Gift Trust · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc

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 Cisco Systems Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Cisco Systems Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%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
    1get no government money at all
    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 72 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $19M of grant expense with no grantee named in the published copy. A private foundation itemizes every grant it makes, so a return carrying none has filed its list as an attachment that the public copy does not include. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Cisco Systems’ 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