· Private foundation
Emerald Gate Charitable Trust
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $50k–250k5 grants · $300k
- $250k+3 grants · $4.2M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SCHWAB CHARITABLE DAF | $3,000,000 |
| EMORY UNIVERSITY | $900,000 |
| PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE | $250,000 |
| ATLANTA SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA | $100,000 |
| THE MILO FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| MARIN HUMANE SOCIETY | $50,000 |
| SAN FRANCISCO SPCA | $50,000 |
| ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA | $50,000 |
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 (FY17–20, $240k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +23% since the first grant, against +18% for the ones you funded once.
24 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 22 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.4M 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
- DSDREW SCHOOL5× · 2019–2023 · $1.3M · revenue +49%
- MAMD Anderson Foundation3× · 2020–2022 · $1.1M · revenue +218%
- CECARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE6× · 2017–2023 · $600k · revenue +23%
Funded once
- MAMD ANDERSON CANCER CENTERone grant, 2023 · $1.0M
- YUYALE UNIVERSITYone grant, 2022 · $1.0M
- YUYALE UNIVERSITYone grant, 2021 · $600k
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.
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.
To harness the power of the human immune system and advanced computing technologies to create and translate scientific discoveries into next generation vaccines and therapies for prevention, control and cure of chronic diseases, enabling…
To improve the lives of people through innovative scientific and engineering research.
The scripps research institute ("tsri") performs high impact basic biomedical research, improves the human condition by fostering translation of its discoveries into useful products and engages in the highest quality graduate scientific…
The Institute is a scientific research center dedicated to conducting basic and applied research to advance the understanding of human disease and the improvement of human health. The Institute fosters an innovative research environment…
Health effects institute's mission is to conduct independent research to provide high-quality, impartial and relevant science on the health effects of air pollution. this is done by identifying the highest priority areas for health effect…
At la jolla institute for immunology, our scientists focus on understanding how the immune system works in order to promote human health and prevent disease. our discoveries apply to many diseases, ranging from diabetes to heart disease,…
Dartmouth College educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership, through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge.
Non-profit research institute to advance a systems (or holistic and cross-disciplinary) approach to science; personalized medicine; global health & environmental sustainability; science education; & the pioneering & invention of biological…
Medical research organization van andel research institute is an independent biomedical research organization committed to improving the health and enhancing the lives of current and future generations.
Research Triangle Institute is one of the world's leading research institutes, dedicated to improving the human condition by turning knowledge into practice. Our staff of more than 5,300 provides research and technical (continued on…
The parker institute for cancer immunotherapy's (pici) mission is to accelerate the development of breakthrough immune therapies to turn all cancers into curable diseases.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Inquiring Systems Inc and the most unlike its peers is Paradox Science Institute. 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 39 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) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% 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.
28 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. 28 of the 53 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 INSTITUTE OF NOETIC SCIENCES ↗
- Who funds DREW SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds MD Anderson Foundation ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds Emory University ↗
- Who funds PEER HEALTH EXCHANGE INC ↗
- Who funds CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds The Institute for Therapeutic Discovery Inc ↗
- Who funds Trustees of Tufts College ↗
- Who funds ROBERT W WOODRUFF ARTS CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds CONSCIOUSNESS AND HEALING INITIATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds NEW STORY INC ↗
- Who funds St John's Health Foundation ↗
- Who funds INQUIRING SYSTEMS INC ↗
- Who funds MARIN HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds THE SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ↗
- Who funds THE MILO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION ENTERPRISES 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: National Philanthropic Trust · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving 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 Emerald Gate Charitable Trust 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Berklee College of Music Inc — 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.