· Public charity
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Inc
To create and lead alliances and public-private partnerships that advance breakthrough biomedical discoveries and improve the quality of people's lives
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.
The 21 grants below total $21,813,761 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $22,714,461 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $900,700 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–50k3 grants · $65k
- $50k–250k8 grants · $1.3M
- $250k+10 grants · $20M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NIHNIAMS | $8,700,000 |
| NIHNCI | $3,724,778 |
| NIH NIMH | $2,614,331 |
| NIHNIAID | $1,834,488 |
| Research Triangle Institute | $836,038 |
| Thomas Jefferson University | $736,764 |
| NIHNINDS | $614,100 |
| Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center | $562,536 |
| NIH NHLBI | $512,204 |
| University of Alabama at Birmingham | $304,475 |
| NIHOD | $249,500 |
| Trustees of Boston University | $231,516 |
| University of North Carolina Chapel Hill | $215,635 |
| The Trustees of Columbia University | $148,351 |
| Friends of Cancer Research | $138,296 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 16% of your 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 +51% since the first grant, against +16% for the ones you funded once.
32 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2024, 20 since wound down.
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, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- RTResearch Triangle Institute5× · 2019–2024 · $3.6M · revenue +45%
- FHFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER8× · 2017–2024 · $3.4M · revenue +27%
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH5× · 2019–2023 · $3.3M · revenue +28%
Funded once
- DDDONALD DANFORTH PLANT SCIENCE CENTERone grant, 2017 · $1.2M · revenue +2%
- NNIHNIAone grant, 2018 · $883k
- UOUNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTEone grant, 2018 · $592k
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.
Nyu is a private university with approximately 60,000 matriculating students in 20 schools and institutes. nyu's primary missions are education, research and scholarship, and patient care.
Fred hutch cancer center ("fred hutch") unites innovative research and compassionate care to prevent and eliminate cancer and infectious disease. continued on schedule o
For more than 125 years, the mission of the johns hopkins hospital has been to lead the world in the diagnosis and treatment of disease and to train tomorrow's great physicians, nurses and scientists. above all, we aim to provide the…
As a leading research university with a distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, Rice University aspires to path breaking research, unsurpassed teaching, and contributions to the betterment of our world. It seeks to fulfill this…
See Form 990, Part I, Line 1, Description of Organization Mission.
We educate the next generation of leaders to improve the health of our society.
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.
Drexel university fulfills its founder's vision of preparing each new generation of students for productive professional and civic lives while also focusing its collective expertise on solving society's greatest problems. drexel is an…
Education, research, medical services and other public services.
Please see schedule o
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.
Operate a state-of-the-art, world-class genomic research center that creates and uses advanced genomics to understand the genetic basis of disease. for more information, see schedule o.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Georgetown University and the most unlike its peers is Catalysis Foundation for Health Inc. 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 65 years old; the field is 14. 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 — 2% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
24 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. 24 of the 41 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 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds Research Triangle Institute ↗
- Who funds FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds DUKE UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds DONALD DANFORTH PLANT SCIENCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds Friends of Cancer Research ↗
- Who funds CATALYSIS FOUNDATION FOR HEALTH INC ↗
- Who funds UNIV OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Emory University ↗
- Who funds The Broad Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds THE TRANSLATIONAL GENOMICS RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI ↗
- Who funds GORDON RESEARCH CONFERENCES INC ↗
- Who funds SUTTER BAY HOSPITALS ↗
- Who funds WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Rush University Medical Center ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
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: Johns Hopkins University · The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York · Muscular Dystrophy Association Inc · Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assn · Northwestern University · Washington University · Charities Aid Foundation America · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Foundation for the National Institutes of Health 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.
- The Broad Institute Inc — 19% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% 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.