· Public charity
Educause
Advance higher education by promoting the use of information technology.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2019.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 22 grants below total $1,185,429 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,278,458 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $93,029 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 · FY2019
- $10k–50k15 grants · $252k
- $50k–250k7 grants · $934k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| COLORADO EDUCATION INITIATIVE | $230,000 |
| WESTED | $195,000 |
| HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION | $160,000 |
| ESCONDIDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT | $103,170 |
| TWO RIVERS PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL | $90,068 |
| LEADERSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS INC | $89,988 |
| ENVISION EDUCATION INC | $65,400 |
| NEW HAMPSHIRE LEARNING INITIATIVE | $33,803 |
| SOUHEGAN HIGH SCHOOL | $23,000 |
| FREMONT HIGH SCHOOL | $15,000 |
| ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION | $15,000 |
| SUMMIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS | $15,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS | $15,000 |
| SHELBY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS | $15,000 |
| WAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM | $15,000 |
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 (FY18–18, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +44% since the first grant, against +22% for the ones you funded once.
14 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2019, 4 since wound down; 12 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (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 FY2019, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $188k 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
ACHIEVING THE DREAM INC2× · 2017–2018 · $815k · revenue +47%- LPLearning Policy Institute2× · 2017–2018 · $575k · revenue +2%
- TCTHE COLORADO EDUCATION INITIATIVE2× · 2017–2019 · $575k · revenue +3%
Funded once
- GDGreen Dot Public Schoolsgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $200k · revenue +55%
- MTMOHAWK TRAIL REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICTone grant, 2018 · $165k
- ELEducationCounsel LLCone grant, 2017 · $153k
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.
To help each child reach his/her full potential by cultivating an active village of parents, community members, and stakeholders involved in providing an individual, personal, and conceptual learning environment for each student.
California education partners seeds and grows collaborations among california's school systems, so that they innovate, improve, and build internal capacity as learning organizations in order to close gaps and lead high performing,…
The Center is dedicated to providing tools the nation needs to lead the world in education & training in a swiftly globalizing world economy.
We provide exemplary interdisciplinary programs for a community of scholar-practitioners within a distributed learning model grounded in student-driven inquiry and leading to enhanced knowledge.
The mission of south shore charter school is to cultivate students the tenacity, integrity, and curiosity needed to become innovative and socially responsible leaders, ready to face and solve the ever-changing challenges facing our…
To provide all students access to a high quality education by facilitating and supporting the creation, operation, and management of innovative and effective school models.
The association serves its members by creating resources that enable california school administrators to develop and apply creative leadership and management skills and in turn, improve the educational process for all students.
Excellence community schools prepares young people in new york city and stamford to compete for admission to and succeed in top public, private and parochial high schools by cultivating their intellectual, artistic, social, emotional, and…
To ensure students reach their fullest potential through access to learning spaces that honor and celebrate students' rich cultural heritage and challenge them with rigorous and relevant learning experiences designed to make them active…
The common application is a not-for-profit membership organization of over 1,100 colleges and universities across the globe committed to access, equity, and integrity in the college admission process. every year, over 1.5 million students…
The mission of the silicon schools fund is to improve education through supporting the launch of excellent new schools, improving academic instruction in existing schools, and by funding some of the boldest innovations in education…
At college prep we believe in the foundational importance of scholarship, the value of dialogue, and the need for academically curious young people to belong to a kind, creative, diverse and joyful community. we challenge our students to…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Center for Collaborative Education Inc and the most unlike its peers is Cohasset Center for Student Coastal Research Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 24 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.
20 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. 20 of the 60 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 ACHIEVING THE DREAM INC ↗
- Who funds New Hampshire Learning Initiative Inc ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR COLLABORATIVE EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds Learning Policy Institute ↗
- Who funds THE COLORADO EDUCATION INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds LEADERSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS ↗
- Who funds TWO RIVERS PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds ENVISION EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WRITING PROJECT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Green Dot Public Schools ↗
- Who funds Research Foundation of the City University of New York ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
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: Tides Center · Project Lead the Way Inc · Project Lead the Way Inc · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Gates Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Jobs for the Future Inc · For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) · Walton Family Foundation Inc · Learning Policy Institute · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Southern Poverty Law Center Inc
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 Educause 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.
- Center for Collaborative Education Inc — 100% of income from government
- Achieving the Dream Inc — 0% 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.