· Public charity
Giffords
To address the issue of gun violence in communities across the country.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 8 grants below total $310,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $401,501 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $91,501 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–50k6 grants · $110k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $200k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SENATE MAJORITY PAC | $100,000 |
| ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC PARTY | $100,000 |
| UNRIG OUR ECONOMY | $40,000 |
| EDUCATION REFORM NOW ADVOCACY | $20,000 |
| END GUN VIOLENCE MICHIGAN ACTION | $20,000 |
| HISPANIC FEDERATION | $10,000 |
| TEXAS GUN SENSE | $10,000 |
| TIDES CENTER | $10,000 |
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 (FY24–24, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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.
5 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 5 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, 7% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $280k 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
- LVLATINO VICTORY PROJECT2× · 2019–2024 · $85k · revenue +50%
- CPCEASEFIRE PENNSYLVANIA2× · 2020–2022 · $20k · revenue +163%
- TGTexas Gun Sense2× · 2023–2024 · $16k · revenue +31%
Funded once
- STSMART TECH CHALLENGES FOUNDATIONone grant, 2019 · $156k · revenue +882%
- SSSAFE SCHOOLS SAFE COMMUNITIES OREGONone grant, 2022 · $105k
- TGThe Good Land Committee Incone grant, 2020 · $100k
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.
Law center to prevent gun violence is a national law center focused on providing comprehensive legal expertise in support of gun violence prevention.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence seeks to secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement, and effective policy advocacy.
Educational, research activity on firearms violence.
GAGV is committed to ending the global gun violence crisis by working with and for the international community through litigation, human rights, education and advocacy, with a focus on reforming dangerous gun industry practices that…
The gvicc identifies, coordinates and strengthens gun violence intervention programs and outcomes in philadelphia by bridging efforts spanning city government, community-based organizations, local health systems, and civic and…
Our organization combats gun violence works to turn out the vote pushes for laws to help previously incarcerated and issues related to social injustice.
Guns down focuses on reducing the number of guns in circulation to minimize gun violence
To advocate for solutions that reduce gun violence.
Chicago Votes is a non-partisan, non-profit organization building a more inclusive democracy by putting power in the hands of young Chicagoans. We're engaging and developing a new generation of leaders by opening the doors of government,…
Gun safety education
Alliance for a Safe Oregon works to make Oregon safer for all Oregonians by ending gun tragedies in our communities. We work with experts, civic leaders and community volunteers to create and advocate for policies, programs and education…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Latino Victory Project and the most unlike its peers is The Terrell Bosley Anti-Violence. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
15 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. 15 of the 24 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 SMART TECH CHALLENGES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds The Good Land Committee Inc ↗
- Who funds LATINO VICTORY PROJECT ↗
- Who funds GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACTION COMMITTEE ↗
- Who funds UNRIG OUR ECONOMY INC ↗
- Who funds MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds END GUN VIOLENCE MICHIGAN ↗
- Who funds CEASEFIRE PENNSYLVANIA ↗
- Who funds EDUCATION REFORM NOW ADVOCACY INC ↗
- Who funds Texas Gun Sense ↗
- Who funds EMBOLDEN WI INC ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds CONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CAUCUS INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds THE TERRELL BOSLEY ANTI-VIOLENCE ↗
- Who funds ALIANZA CENTER INC ↗
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: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund Inc · Education Reform Now Advocacy Inc · New Venture Fund · 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 Giffords 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.
- Alianza Center 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.