Skip to content
Contina Impact at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Contina Impact

The organization's mission is to serve as the fiscal sponsor for the charitable donations and philanthropic disbursements of individuals, foundation, and other entities, to provide technical assistance to youth-serving and nonprofit organizations and to coordinate education and other policy efforts.

$9.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
23
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$1.3M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

Public Benefit$4.6MHousing & Shelter$2.3MInternational$1.2MPhilanthropy$687kEducation$472kArts & Culture$330kReligion$300kCivil Rights$250k
02FY2024 · 23 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 23 grants below total $8,452,546, the rows itemized in this filing. The $8,952,546 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $500,000 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.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $68k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $672k
  • $250k+13 grants · $7.7M
$250,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$14M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER INSTITUTE$1,250,000
SUPPORT SERVICES NETWORK$1,250,000
MORE IN COMMON$1,106,679
DEMOCRACY SECURITY PROJECT$750,000
SD FOUNDATION$636,000
NEO PHILANTHROPY$570,000
GLOBAL IMPACT-PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE$500,000
SECURE FAMILIES FOUNDATION$350,000
REDEEMING BABEL$300,000
ISSUE ONE$250,000
ACCESS NOW$250,000
INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR NOT-FORPROFIT LAW (ICNL)$250,000
INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC DIALOGUE US$250,000
HARMONY LABS INC$180,000
EQUIS INSTITUTE$150,000
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, $2.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%MORE IN COMMON: $1.1M → 17%MORE IN COMMON: $847k → 17%MORE IN COMMON: $390k → 17%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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

50%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.7M · 4 repeat orgs$4.8M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +1% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 16 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
16

Total granted

$4.7M
$4.8M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+1%
0%

Still filing today

100%
94%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 38% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4.8M went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
EducationPublic BenefitInternationalCivil RightsArts & CultureHuman ServicesOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • MI
    MORE IN COMMON INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $2.3M · revenue -6% · 32% of their budget
  • DD
    DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER INSTITUTE
    2× · 2023–2024 · $1.6M · revenue +142%
  • NEO Philanthropy Inc
    2× · 2023–2024 · $675k · revenue +1%

Funded once

  • SS
    SUPPORT SERVICES NETWORK
    one grant, 2024 · $1.3M
  • DS
    DEMOCRACY SECURITY PROJECT ACTION FUND
    one grant, 2024 · $750k · 58% of their budget
  • SF
    SD Foundation
    one grant, 2024 · $636k · revenue 0%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its 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
The International Institute for Strategic Studies - Us

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,…

International
2
The Democracy Integrity Project

The democracy integrity project (tdip) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit that provides research on matters of public interest to government entities, media, and other nonprofits to educate the public on matters such as foreign election interference,…

Civil Rights
3
Center for Strategic and International Studies

The center for strategic and international studies (csis) is a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization dedicated to advancing practical ideas to address the world's greatest challenges.

International
4
Secure Democracy Usa

Secure Democracy USA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to build stronger elections, state by state.

Civil Rights
5
Institute for Defense Analyses

The institute for defense analyses is organized for the purpose of applied research. the institute for defense analyses provides independent and objective scientific and technological expertise to assist national security decision-makers…

Science & Tech
6
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs

Ndi strives for a world where people have a say in how they're governed and where leaders are accountable totheir people - creating a more stable, peaceful and prosperous world for everyone.

International
7
Center for Democracy and Technology

Advocating for public policies that advance democratic values in the digital age.

Civil Rights
8
Independent Diplomat Inc

To offer independent and confidential advice and practical assistance in diplomatic strategy and technique to governments, political groups, international organizations and ngos on diplomatic process and decision-making.

International
9
United States Naval Institute

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.

—
10
International Budget Partnership

Ibp works with civil society, governments, international institutions and the private sector to bring about a world in which empowered citizens participate in open, inclusive public budgeting processes to shape policies and practices that…

International
11
Sustained Dialogue Institute

Sustained dialogue develops leaders able to transform differences into the strong relationships essential to equitable decision-making, democratic governance, and peace.

Philanthropy
12
Center for European Policy Analysis

See schedule othe center for european policy analysis (cepa) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public policy institution headquartered in washington, dc with hubs in london and brussels, focused on strengthening the transatlantic alliance…

Social Science
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is States United Democracy Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Good Faith Network Inc. 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

22 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. 22 of the 23 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/22
Grantees still filing
4/22
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER INSTITUTE: $1,610,000 · EducationDEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER IN…DEMOCRACY SECURITY PROJECT ACTION FUND: $750,000 · EducationDEMOCRACY SECURITY PROJECT ACTI…INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC DIALOGUE-US: $250,000 · EducationINSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC DIALOGU…THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $147,367 · Education+1 more: $75,000 · EducationMORE IN COMMON INC: $2,343,679 · Human ServicesMORE IN COMMON INC+1 more: $12,500 · Human ServicesSUPPORT SERVICES NETWORK: $1,250,000 · OtherSUPPORT SERVICES NET…ACCESS NOW: $250,000 · OtherACCESS NOWGood Faith Network Inc: $300,000 · OtherGood Faith Network I…+2 more: $70,000 · OtherGlobal Impact: $500,000 · InternationalGlobal ImpactSECURE FAMILIES FOUNDATION: $350,000 · InternationalSECURE FAMILI…INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR NOT-FOR-PROFIT LAW INC: $250,000 · InternationalINTERNATIONAL…CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: $95,000 · InternationalCARNEGIE ENDO…NEO Philanthropy Inc: $674,850 · Public BenefitNEO Philan…ISSUE ONE: $250,000 · Public BenefitISSUE ONE+2 more: $45,000 · Public BenefitSD Foundation: $636,000 · PhilanthropyHARMONY LABS INC: $180,000 · Arts & CultureEQUIS INSTITUTE: $150,000 · Arts & Culture
Education$2,832,367Human Services$2,356,179Other$1,870,000International$1,195,000Public Benefit$969,850Philanthropy$636,000Arts & Culture$330,000

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 budgetMORE IN COMMON INC: $2,343,679 over 3y, 32% of budgetDEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER INSTITUTE: $1,610,000 over 2y, 4.9% of budgetDEMOCRACY SECURITY PROJECT ACTION FUND: $750,000 over 1y, 58% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Inc: $674,850 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetSD Foundation: $636,000 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetGlobal Impact: $500,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetSECURE FAMILIES FOUNDATION: $350,000 over 1y, 57% of budgetGood Faith Network Inc: $300,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetACCESS NOW: $250,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetINTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR NOT-FOR-PROFIT LAW INC: $250,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC DIALOGUE-US: $250,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetISSUE ONE: $250,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetHARMONY LABS INC: $180,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetEQUIS INSTITUTE: $150,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $147,367 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: $95,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $75,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetSTATES UNITED DEMOCRACY CENTER INC: $60,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetFUND FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNGO-Information Sharing and Analysis Center: $20,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetTIDES CENTER: $12,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHEALTHY DEMOCRACY FUND: $10,000 over 1y, 1.4% 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.

New Venture FundThe David and Lucile …The William & Flora H…Foundation to Promote…Skoll FundThe Klarman Family Fo…John D and Catherine …Amalgamated Charitabl…The Ford FoundationRockefeller Philanthr…Silicon Valley Commun…Democracy Fund Inc
New Venture FundDC22.1× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: New Venture Fund · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Foundation to Promote Open Society · Skoll Fund · The Klarman Family Foundation · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Ford Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Democracy Fund 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 Contina Impact funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Contina Impact. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Contina Impact?

    Find your warmest path to Contina Impact through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 23 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Contina Impact’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