· Public charity
Ending Spending Inc
Ending spending promotes public policies, increases government transparency and accountability, and promotes fiscal discipline.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 5 grants below total $200,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $205,000 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $5,000 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 · FY2024
- $10k–50k4 grants · $100k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| AMERICAN FIRST WORKS INC | $100,000 |
| REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION | $35,000 |
| SENATE OPPORTUNITY FUND | $25,000 |
| THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY | $25,000 |
| MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH | $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 (FY20–20, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 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 +38% since the first grant, against +14% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 3 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, 20% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $160k 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
- TBThe Becket Fund4× · 2020–2024 · $100k · revenue +135%
- MIMANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH INC3× · 2022–2024 · $55k · revenue +26%
- HIHudson Institute Inc2× · 2019–2023 · $35k · revenue +38%
Funded once
- CSCOMMON SENSE LEADERSHIP FUND INCone grant, 2022 · $750k · revenue -34%
- ARAMERICAN REDISTRICTING PROJECTone grant, 2020 · $100k · revenue +14%
- CTCommittee to Protect Voters Rightsone grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue -86%
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.
With a commitment to free market principles, APC focuses on educating the public about conservative fiscal policies that foster job growth, a stronger economy, and increased opportunity for all Americans.
To teach and disseminate educational materials to the public.
To educate journalists and the public, and foster public debate, about improving political journalism to reflect public needs and hold the powerful accountable.
Conduct research and training to guide conservatives through the digital transformation of politics and advocating for the increased adoption of digital communications technology by candidates and elected officials.
Foreign Policy For America is a nonpartisan advocacy organization founded to strengthen support for principled American engagement in the world.
The Common Sense Policy Institute works to inform the American public of dysfunction in the government by identifying government waste, fraud, and abuse through engaging in nonpartisan analysis, study, and research relating to government…
The american conservative exists to promote a "main street" conservatism that opposes unchecked power in government and business; promote the flourishing of families and communities through vibrant markets and free people; and embrace…
Research analyze publish information to public on elections election systems laws and campaign financing.
To advance policies that promote limited government, support economic growth and business, and seek strong international relationships that enhance American national security and trade objectives.
The Progress Texas Institute provides research and strategic communications on issues with the ultimate goal of increasing civic engagement.
RepresentUs is America's leading nonpartisan grassroots organization working for a government accountable to the people. We unite people from all backgrounds to defend democracy, root out corruption, mobilize action, and support campaigns…
CEIR seeks to restore trust in the American election system and promote election procedures that encourage participation while ensuring election integrity and security.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Review Institute and the most unlike its peers is Committee to Protect Voters Rights. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
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 21 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 COMMON SENSE LEADERSHIP FUND INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICA FIRST WORKS INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN REDISTRICTING PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Committee to Protect Voters Rights ↗
- Who funds The Becket Fund ↗
- Who funds MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH INC ↗
- Who funds WINNING FOR WOMEN INC ↗
- Who funds FAIR LINES AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds OPPORTUNITY MATTERS NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds UNLEASH PROSPERITY INC ↗
- Who funds Hardworking Georgians Inc ↗
- Who funds WOMEN WINNING ↗
- Who funds Hudson Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION ↗
- Who funds RULE OF LAW DEFENSE FUND ↗
- Who funds Senate Opportunity Fund ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds AR2 INC ↗
- Who funds THE JACK KEMP FOUNDATION ↗
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: American Action Network Inc · The Concord Fund · Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
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 Ending Spending Inc 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.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Ending Spending Inc?
Find your warmest path to Ending Spending Inc 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.