Skip to content

· Private foundation

Fund for Science and Technology

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$15M
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$10M
Largest
01What it funds
01FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,000,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.1B
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON$10,000,000
SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL$2,000,000
FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER CENTER$2,000,000
BENAROYA RESEARCH INSTITUTE AT VIRGINIA MASON$1,000,000
02The need
02

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY25–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%BENAROYA RESEARCH INSTITUTE AT VIRGINIA MASON: $1.0M → 9%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: $10.0M → 9%SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: $2.0M → 9%FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER CENTER: $2.0M → 9%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
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.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its field
03the grantee network

3 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 3 of the 4 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
3/3
Grantees still filing
0/3
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: $10,000,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTONSEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: $2,000,000 · HealthSEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITALFred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $2,000,000 · HealthFred Hutchinson Cancer CenterBENAROYA RESEARCH INSTITUTE AT VIRGINIA: $1,000,000 · HealthBENAROYA RESEARCH INSTITUTE AT VIRGIN…
Other$10,000,000Health$5,000,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: $2,000,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $2,000,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBENAROYA RESEARCH INSTITUTE AT VIRGINIA: $1,000,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

04Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Fund for Science and Technology?

Find your warmest path to Fund for Science and Technology 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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 4 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Fund for Science and Technology’s filings →

More from the funding graph