· Private foundation
Fund for Innovation and Public Services
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
- Under $10k14 grants · $20k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $80k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $124k
- $250k+1 grant · $310k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ASHOKA | $310,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $124,000 |
| LUMNI FOUNDATION | $40,000 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NETWORK | $20,000 |
| TURNOUT ACTIVISM | $10,000 |
| FIRST BOOK | $10,000 |
| SI KAHN LIVING LEGACY | $8,000 |
| GENDER ACTION | $8,000 |
| NORTH SOUTH FOUNDATION | $3,000 |
| PEACE APPEAL FOUNDATION | $500 |
| COMMONWEALTH | $200 |
| THE BUCKLEY SCHOOL | $110 |
| NRDC | $110 |
| PHILLIPS ACADEMY | $100 |
| DEMOCRACY 21 | $100 |
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, $51k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those 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 +56% since the first grant, against +37% for the ones you funded once.
34 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2024, 20 since wound down; 4 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, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $48k 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
- AASHOKA8× · 2017–2024 · $2.6M · revenue +129%
- EPENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NETWORK8× · 2017–2024 · $56k · revenue +620%
- GAGET AMERICA WORKING INC4× · 2017–2020 · $51k · revenue +279% · 48% of their budget
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2018 · $38k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2017 · $20k
- YVYOUTH VENTURE INCgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $15k · revenue +236%
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 open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
To research and develop centrist policy ideas.
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…
Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
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…
The american enterprise institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening free enterprise. aei pursues these ideals through independent thinking and the…
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
The mission of naaee is to use the power of education to advance environmental literacy and civic engagement to create a more equitable and sustainable future. we work with educators, policymakers, and partners aroung the world.
The peterson institute for international economics (piie) is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening prosperity and human welfare in the global economy through expert analysis and practical…
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
The Center is dedicated to providing tools the nation needs to lead the world in education & training in a swiftly globalizing world economy.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Green Corps Inc and the most unlike its peers is Camp to Belong. 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 31 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
34 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. 34 of the 63 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 ASHOKA ↗
- Who funds FIRST BOOK ↗
- Who funds Gender Action ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NETWORK ↗
- Who funds GET AMERICA WORKING INC ↗
- Who funds TURNOUT ACTIVISM INC ↗
- Who funds NORTH SOUTH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds YOUTH VENTURE INC ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL FAIRNESS INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds NEW GEORGIA PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds Meridian Institute ↗
- Who funds DEMOCRACY 21 ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR INSPIRED TEACHING ↗
- Who funds POSITIVE COACHING ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds PLAYWORKS EDUCATION ENERGIZED ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds BLACK ROCK FOREST CONSORTIUM INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS & SCIENCES ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE EARTH ↗
- Who funds THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY ↗
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: Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Fund for Innovation and Public Services 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.
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- American Academy of Arts & Sciences — 3% 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 Fund for Innovation and Public Services?
Find your warmest path to Fund for Innovation and Public Services 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.