· Private foundation
Foundation to Promote Open Society
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 FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k3 grants · $21k
- $10k–50k27 grants · $827k
- $50k–250k284 grants · $39M
- $250k+424 grants · $442M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION LONDON | $44,927,239 |
| SOROS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND | $25,000,000 |
| BARD COLLEGE | $20,000,000 |
| THE BOSTON FOUNDATION | $20,000,000 |
| ROMA FOUNDATION FOR EUROPE | $15,602,337 |
| CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY | $15,000,000 |
| OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION LONDON | $8,072,761 |
| AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED | $5,200,000 |
| INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN SCIENCES | $3,810,000 |
| OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION FOR ALBANIA | $3,347,000 |
| CIVIL SOCIETY FOUNDATION | $3,209,940 |
| UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHA | $3,000,000 |
| CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE | $3,000,000 |
| FONDATION CONNAISSANCE ET LIBERTE | $3,000,000 |
| IDEAS INNOVACION INFRAESTRUCTURAS E INDUSTRIALIZ | $2,998,800 |
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 US giving — 72% of grant dollars ($3.4B). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 28% that went abroad ($1.3B) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY20–24, $39.5M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, 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
Beyond the US — 28% of all-years giving ($1.3B)
113 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 6% of Foundation to Promote Open Society’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 53% of the giving stays in NY; read by stated purpose it is 50% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +19% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
1205 repeat relationships — 357 still active in FY2024, 848 since wound down; 149 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, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $79M 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
BARD COLLEGE5× · 2020–2024 · $49M · revenue +151%
NEO Philanthropy Inc4× · 2020–2023 · $28M · revenue +27%- CECARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE5× · 2020–2024 · $16M · revenue +1%
Funded once
- OSOPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTEone grant, 2021 · $1.8B · revenue -60%
- NTNATIONAL TRUST FOR LOCAL NEWSone grant, 2023 · $6.4M · revenue +15%
National Domestic Workers Alliance Incone grant, 2020 · $4.7M · revenue -38%
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 lead and coordinate the global initiative to address and prevent criminalization, violence, and impunity against indigenous peoples towards strengthening their collectives, solidarity, and actions.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
To provide accurate, objective information and analysis on international strategic issues for legislators, diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business leaders, economists, the military, defense commentators, journalists,…
Our mission is to create a fair and inclusive economy where underserved people have quality financial choices and opportunities to improve their economic well-being. we find and help build innovative companies with the potential to reach…
The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
Bringing diverse voices together across global sectors, disciplines, and demographics so developments in ai advance positive outcomes for people and society.
Common future is a network of pioneering leaders across the u.s. and canada who work deeply within their communities to create alternative approaches to business, philanthropy, and investing. we envision an economy that has transitioned…
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
Fund for Justice is a nationally connected social impact research and advocacy organization that works to achieve fundamental, systemic reform by addressing policies and practicies that prevent individuals from reaching their full…
Protecting and advancing freedom of expression and privacy in information and communications technology (ict) sector.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Policylink and the most unlike its peers is The Arsenault Family Foundation 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 23 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 10% 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.
803 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. 803 of the 2,000 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds SOROS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND ↗
- Who funds THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds BARD COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE FOR OPEN SOCIETY INT'L INC ↗
- Who funds HOPEWELL FUND ↗
- Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
- Who funds BOREALIS PHILANTHROPY ↗
- Who funds THE MAYOR'S FUND TO ADVANCE NEW YORK CITY ↗
- Who funds Boston Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE ↗
- Who funds EQUIS INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds VOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds OXFAM-AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds COMMON COUNSEL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC FUND INC ↗
- Who funds COLOR OF CHANGEORG EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds NAMATI INC ↗
- Who funds HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE INSTITUTE ↗
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: Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · Open Society Institute · The Ford Foundation · Democracy Fund Inc · Rockefeller Brothers Fund Inc · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Wallace Global Fund II · Alliance for Open Society Int'L Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Proteus Fund Inc · Omidyar Network Fund Inc · New Venture Fund
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 to Promote Open Society 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 Boston University — 12% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- Disability Rights Fund Inc — 10% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Third Sector New England Inc — 3% of income from government
- Fusion Partnership Inc — 3% of income from government
- Native Arts and Cultures Foundation Inc — 1% of income from government
- Fund for Educational Excellence Inc — 1% of income from government
- Rutgers University Foundation — 0% of income from government
- Boston Foundation Inc — 0% of income from government
- Oxfam-America 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Foundation to Promote Open Society?
Find your warmest path to Foundation to Promote Open Society 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.