Skip to content
DT Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

DT Foundation

Its FY2019 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$84k
Granted FY2019
1
Grants FY2019
1
States reached
$84k
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, FY2017 to 2019.

Science & Tech$514kPublic Benefit$455kCivil Rights$318kSocial Science$155kEducation$119kEnvironment$97kCrime & Legal$91kHealth$5k
02FY2019 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$84,321
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Data & Society Research Institute$84,321
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 (FY17–19) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 80% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Bridgewater State University: $64k → 8%Boston Childrens Hospital: $5k → 16%Without My Consent: $65k → 10%Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: $25k → 11%The University Corporation: $19k → 14%Consumer Credit Service of Rochester: $10k → 14%Data & Society Research Institute: $84k → 17%Ctr on Law & Information-Fordham Univ: $93k → 28%Harris Co Dept of Education: $19k → 16%US PIRG Educational Fund: $10k → 14%Appalachian Ctr for Resilience: $97k → 13%Internet Keep Safe Coalition: $35k → 7%National Center for Missing & Exploited: $41k → 9%University of New Hampshire: $5k → 9%Electronic Frontier Foundation: $80k → 10%Consumer Credit Service of Rochester: $6k → 14%Data & Society Research Institute: $76k → 17%Electronic Privacy Info Center: $55k → 14%Internet Keep Safe Coalition: $25k → 7%Electronic Frontier Foundation: $25k → 10%New York University: $13k → 17%Center for Digital Democracy: $25k → 14%ACLU Foundation: $25k → 17%National Cyber Security Alliance: $49k → 14%Family Online Safety Institute: $25k → 14%Family Online Safety Institute: $25k → 14%FPF Educ & Innovation Fnd: $94k → 14%Center for Democracy & Tech: $50k → 14%New America: $245k → 14%FPF Educ & Innovation Fnd: $25k → 14%New America: $146k → 14%Consumer Federation of America: $25k → 14%NNEDV: $137k → 14%Consumer Federation of America: $14k → 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

NH
WI
NY
MA
CA
VA
TN
DC
TX
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.

54%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$940k · 8 repeat orgs$796k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2019, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
18

Total granted

$940k
$796k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+24%
+78%

Still filing today

63%
39%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19
Public BenefitCivil RightsEducationHealthOther
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

  • DS
    DATA & SOCIETY RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC
    2× · 2017–2019 · $160k · revenue +38%
  • EF
    Electronic Frontier Foundation Inc
    2× · 2017–2018 · $105k · revenue +24%
  • CF
    Consumer Federation of America
    2× · 2017–2018 · $39k · revenue +237%

Funded once

  • N
    NNEDV
    one grant, 2018 · $137k
  • AC
    APPALACHIAN CENTER FOR RESILIENCE RESEARCH
    one grant, 2017 · $97k
  • CO
    Ctr on Law & Information-Fordham Univ
    one grant, 2017 · $93k
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
Center for Democracy and Technology

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

Civil Rights
2
Pew Research Center

Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan "fact tank" that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. Pew Research Center generates a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue and…

Social Science
3
Electronic Privacy Information Center

Epic's mission is to secure the fundamental right to privacy in the digital age for all people through advocacy, research, and litigation.

Civil Rights
4
Open Markets Institute

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.

Education
5
Center for Humane Technology

Center for Humane Technology is a nonprofit dedicated to ensuring that the most consequential technologies actually serve humanity. We bring clarity to how the tech ecosystem works in order to shift the incentives that drive it.

Science & Tech
6
University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development

Internet2 promotes the missions of its members by providing both leading-edge network capabilities and unique partnership opportunities that together facilitate the development, deployment and use of revolutionary internet technologies.

Science & Tech
7
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists Inc

International consortium of investigative journalists, inc.'s (icij) mission is to show people how the world really works through stories that rock the world; forcing positive change.

International
8
Cyber Civil Rights Initiative Inc

The organization's mission is to combat online abuses that threaten civil rights and civil liberties.

Religion
9
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University Inc

The Knight First Amendment Institute defends the freedoms of speech and the press in the digital age through strategic litigation, research, public advocacy and public education. Our aim is to promote a system of free expression that is…

Education
10
Center for Intimacy Justice

Center for Intimacy Justice (CIJ) works to create equity and wellbeing in people's intimate lives. CIJ's first program is changing Big Tech platforms discriminatory suppression of womens sexual and reproductive health information online.

Civil Rights
11
National Academy of Public Administration

The National Academy of Public Administration is an independent, 501(c)(3) nonprofit, non partisan Organization established in 1967 and chartered by Congress in 1984. See Schedule O

Public Benefit
12
Center for Responsible Science
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is New America Foundation; the most unlike its peers is New York University. 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

14 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. 14 of the 26 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/14
Grantees still filing
9/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: $391,254 · OtherNEW AMERICA FOUNDATIONNNEDV: $136,500 · OtherNNEDVFPF Educ & Innovation Fnd: $118,750 · OtherFPF Educ & Innovation FndElectronic Frontier Foundation Inc: $105,000 · OtherElectronic Frontier Foundation IncAPPALACHIAN CENTER FOR RESILIENCE RESEARCH: $97,408 · OtherAPPALACHIAN CENTER FOR RESILIENCE RESEARCHCtr on Law & Information-Fordham Univ: $93,000 · OtherCtr on Law & Information-Fordham UnivWithout My Consent: $64,939 · OtherBridgewater State University: $63,787 · OtherInternet Keep Safe Coalition: $60,000 · OtherElectronic Privacy Info Center: $55,000 · OtherCenter for Democracy & Tech: $50,000 · OtherFAMILY ONLINE SAFETY INSTITUTE: $50,000 · Other+6 more: $110,991 · Other+6 moreDATA & SOCIETY RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC: $159,876 · Public BenefitDATA & SOCIETY RE…National Cyber Security Alliance: $48,750 · Public BenefitNational Cyber Se…Consumer Federation of America: $38,511 · Public BenefitConsumer Federati…Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: $25,000 · Public BenefitPrivacy Rights Cl…CENTER FOR DIGITAL DEMOCRACY: $25,000 · Civil RightsAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 · Civil RightsNew York University: $12,500 · EducationChildren's Hospital Corporation: $4,976 · Health
Other$1,396,629Public Benefit$272,137Civil Rights$50,000Education$12,500Health$4,976

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: $391,254 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetDATA & SOCIETY RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC: $159,876 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetElectronic Frontier Foundation Inc: $105,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetWithout My Consent: $64,939 over 1y, 96% of budgetFAMILY ONLINE SAFETY INSTITUTE: $50,000 over 2y, 24% of budgetNational Cyber Security Alliance: $48,750 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetConsumer Federation of America: $38,511 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetCENTER FOR DIGITAL DEMOCRACY: $25,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetPrivacy Rights Clearinghouse: $25,000 over 1y, 33% of budgetAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION: $19,349 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNew York University: $12,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetChildren's Hospital Corporation: $4,976 over 1y, 0.0% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA1.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 DT Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from DT Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →median 10%
  • Children's Hospital Corporation: 10% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get 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 · 0–60%
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 DT Foundation?

Find your warmest path to DT Foundation 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 26 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on DT’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