· Public charity
Codeorg
Code.org is an education innovation nonprofit dedicated to expanding access to computer science, and increasing participation by young women and underrepresented groups.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 32 grants below total $1,064,683 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,092,184 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $27,501 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k5 grants · $35k
- $10k–50k21 grants · $621k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $409k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY | $91,250 |
| CODE IN THE SCHOOLS | $82,500 |
| SACRED HEART | $68,122 |
| MOUSE | $60,000 |
| OKLAHOMA PUBLIC SCHOOL RESOURCE CENTER INC | $56,059 |
| CSFORMA INC | $51,000 |
| THE FRIDAY INSTITUTE | $48,000 |
| MAUI ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD INC | $44,200 |
| FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY | $43,500 |
| EDUCATE MAINE | $42,500 |
| NEW MEXICO COMPUTER SCIENCE ALLIANCE | $39,000 |
| LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY | $35,400 |
| ORLANDO SCIENCE CENTER | $34,500 |
| MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY | $34,000 |
| GEORGIA TECH - CEISMC | $34,000 |
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 human-services grants (FY18–25, $396k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% 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
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.
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.
50 repeat relationships — 31 still active in FY2025, 19 since wound down; 1 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, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $21k 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
- BEBATTELLE EDUCATION7× · 2018–2025 · $396k · revenue +168%
- ACAVID CENTER5× · 2020–2025 · $366k · revenue +41%
- MLMINDSPARK LEARNING6× · 2019–2025 · $296k · revenue +25%
Funded once
- MMMSET MARYLAND SOCIETY FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGYone grant, 2018 · $100k
- PSPUGET SOUND EDUCATIONAL SERVICE DISTRICTone grant, 2018 · $78k
- 9D9 DOTS COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $76k · revenue +139%
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.
Dfsme's mission is to strengthen science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education to prepare all delaware students to be informed citizens and competitive in the global workforce.
The mission of the charter school is to prepare students for higher learning in a safe, caring, and collaborative atmosphere through a quality learner-centered educational program with a strong emphasis on science, technology, engineering,…
The nstmf's mission is to build inclusive stem communities across the united states. fundamental to these communities are the significant, inspirational connections we foster between the individuals who have received national recognition…
Maximize learning and teaching by bringing together the best in people and technology.
To provide leadership and support for the national effort to increase the representation of successful african american, native american and latinx women and men in engineering and technology, math, and science-based careers.
Building educator excellence to give all students the opportunity for success.
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
Drexel university fulfills its founder's vision of preparing each new generation of students for productive professional and civic lives while also focusing its collective expertise on solving society's greatest problems. drexel is an…
Nysci's mission is to nurture generations of passionate learners, critical thinkers, and active citizens through design make play - an approach to learning and engagement that is deeply rooted in research on stem learning and guides the…
Ai4all's mission is to ensure that the next generation of ai leaders reflects humanity. ai4all is transforming the pipeline of ai practitioners who will shape ai for the benefit of humanity.
Talent is equally distributed, but opportunity is not. STEM Advantage mentors, prepares, and inspires first-generation, low-income, and underserved college students for careers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). We level…
The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Kipp Foundation and the most unlike its peers is William Marsh Rice University. 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 32 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
33 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. 33 of the 67 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
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 BATTELLE EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds AVID CENTER ↗
- Who funds CSforMA Inc ↗
- Who funds MOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds MINDSPARK LEARNING ↗
- Who funds OKLAHOMA PUBLIC SCHOOL RESOURCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds COMPUTER SCIENCE ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Alaska Council of School Administrators ↗
- Who funds SACRED HEART UNIVERSITY INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds Educate Maine ↗
- Who funds KENTUCKY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CORP ↗
- Who funds ARIZONA SCIENCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds CODE IN THE SCHOOLS INC ↗
- Who funds Marquette University ↗
- Who funds MAUI ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD INC ↗
- Who funds ORLANDO SCIENCE CENTERINC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds SILICON VALLEY EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE NEW BOHEMIAN INNOVATION COLLABORATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds LUMITY ↗
- Who funds William Marsh Rice University ↗
- Who funds UNION STATION KANSAS CITY INC ↗
- Who funds 9 DOTS COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTER ↗
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: California County Superintendents · Scratch Foundation · Share Our Strength · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · New Venture Fund · Tides Foundation · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Codeorg 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Oklahoma Public School Resource Center — 67% of income from government
- CSforMA Inc — 52% of income from government
- Zip Code Wilmington Inc — 21% of income from government
- Orlando Science Centerinc — 4% of income from government
- Sacred Heart University Incorporated — 1% 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.