How much did FOUNDERS PLEDGE INC grant in FY2024?

Science & Tech$19MEnvironment$12MEducation$8.7MPhilanthropy$8.5MInternational$8.1MHealth$6.5MPublic Safety & Disaster$5.2MPublic Benefit$2.7MHuman Services$2.2MOther$42M

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2018

—

2020

food aidcovidblack livesnaacpindiamedianadvocacy

2021

cambridgeoxfordmachine learningstanford existentialfuture humanitygirlsfeed earth

2022

alignment researchconductbreakthroughmodelingimpactmanifoldscience

2023

teamstudiesstrategicanimalfishchinainternational

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 102 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k7 grants · $42k
$10k–50k37 grants · $852k
$50k–250k33 grants · $3.8M
$250k+25 grants · $22M

$81,000

Median grant

States reached

$118M

Total assets

Largest grants

DEPLOYUS$8,925,000
CENTER FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SAFETY INC$1,096,000
THE RAND CORPORATION$1,000,000
PLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND$804,000
SANGRO INC (DBA ASHGRO)$741,500
PALISADE RESEARCH$726,000
MATS RESEARCH INC$584,000
LONGVIEW PHILANTHROPY USA$562,000
SAFE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FORUM INSTITUTE$540,000
JOHNS HOPKINS - CENTER FOR HEALTH SECURITY (CHS)$539,757
AI OBJECTIVES INSTITUTE$538,000
RESTORINGVISION$531,000
RETHINK PRIORITIES$520,000
EFFECTIVE VENTURES FOUNDATION USA$510,000
THE FOUNDATION FOR AMERICAN INNOVATION (LINCOLN NETWORK)$493,000

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $1.9M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12% — the area typically sits at 10%. 99% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

66%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$76M · 78 repeat orgs$39M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +234% since the first grant, against +71% for the ones you funded once.

78 repeat relationships — 33 still active in FY2024, 45 since wound down; 68 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

157

Total granted

$76M

$30M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+234%

+71%

Still filing today

69%

50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9.2M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

EducationInternationalScience & TechHealthCivil RightsPhilanthropyOther

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

D
DEPLOYUS
2× · 2023–2024 · $9.8M · revenue +6298% · 55% of their budget
CF
CENTER FOR APPLIED RATIONALITY
3× · 2020–2022 · $4.3M · revenue +201% · 59% of their budget
AR
ALIGNMENT RESEARCH CENTER
3× · 2022–2024 · $4.2M · revenue +997% · 49% of their budget

Funded once

TE
TSINGHUA EDUCATION FOUNDATION NA INC
one grant, 2023 · $2.5M · revenue -95%
UT
UKRAINE TRUSTCHAIN
one grant, 2023 · $2.3M · revenue -12% · 36% of their budget
CF
CENTER FOR APPLIED RATIONALITY
one grant, 2023 · $1.9M

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

Responsible Innovation Labs Inc

Responsible Innovation Labs is a coalition of leading investors and technology executives who recognize the importance of responsible innovation and the need for a more rigorous approach to tackling the challenges and opportunities of this…

Science & Tech

The Breakthrough Institute

The Breakthrough Institute is a research center that identifies and promotes technological solutions to environmental and human development challenges.

Environment

International Peace Institute Inc

The international peace institute is an independent, non-profit organization working to strengthen inclusive multilateralism for a more peaceful and sustainable planet. through its research, convening, and strategic advising, ipi provides…

International

E3G Third Generation Environmentalism

E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.

Environment

Speculative Technologies Inc

Speculative technologies is a nonprofit research organization that runs coordinated research programs to unlock big-if-true technologies that are too speculative to be a startup but are too coordination- or engineering-heavy for academia…

Science & Tech

Conservation X Labs Inc

Applying technology and innovation to prevent the sixth mass extinction.

Animals

Activate Global Inc

Activate empowers scientists to reinvent the world by bringing their research to market. Activate partners with U.S.-based funders, research institutions, and other pillars of the hard technology community to help entrepreneurial…

Environment

Open Transformation Lab Inc

The missions is to provide information and resources to counter disinformation, propaganda, and offer a window to trusted content about the events that are going on in the Middle East.

Science & Tech

Upturn Inc

Upturn advances equity and justice in the design, governance, and use of technology.

—

Observer Research Foundation America

Organization mission the observer research foundation america orf america is an independent, non-partisan, and nonprofit organization in washington dc dedicated to addressing policy challenges facing the united states, india, and their…

International

Lawfare Institute

Produce scientific content on lawfare and the analysis of emblematic cases of the phenomenon through publication of the lawfare website, podcasts and related media.

Public Benefit

The International Institute for

International

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Evidence Action and the most unlike its peers is Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton. 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.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 13 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 16% of your grantees by number, and just 23% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.5% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.5%1/203

the rest of the field

11%

206,163/1,819,362

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.

05the grantee network

198 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

197/198

Grantees still filing

150/198

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$51,826,467Science & Tech$19,247,094Environment$11,777,323Education$8,666,715Philanthropy$8,548,495International$8,131,685Health$6,498,386

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.

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.

Effective Ventures Foundation USA IncCA64.7× affinity28 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Effective Ventures Foundation USA Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Every Org · Good Ventures Foundation · Rethink Charity · Berkeley Existential Risk Initiative · ISRB Fund Inc · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Bright Funds Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San · Rsf Social Finance Inc · The Rockefeller 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 organisation FOUNDERS PLEDGE 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

23get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: CONVERGENCE ANALYSIS.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

medium risk

~5 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 5 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

5 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 5.6× since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 832842233 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on CONVERGENCE ANALYSIS, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

WatchFinancial stability— Roughly 5 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 100% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to Founders Pledge Inc?

Find your warmest path to Founders Pledge Inc through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

FOUNDERS PLEDGE INC

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

198 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Founders Pledge Inc?

More from the funding graph

FOUNDERS PLEDGE INC

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

198 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Founders Pledge Inc?

More from the funding graph