How much did GLENN GREENBERG AND LINDA VESTER grant in FY2024?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 47% of GLENN GREENBERG AND LINDA VESTER’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.

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

2019

brick churchnypyalehackley

2020

—

2021

—

2022

tasis

2023

labsdoradopresbyterian

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

03FY2024 · 49 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k2 grants · $15k
$10k–50k3 grants · $60k
$50k–250k14 grants · $1.4M
$250k+30 grants · $56M

$350,000

Median grant

States reached

$258M

Total assets

Largest grants

TASIS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION$14,488,291
YALE UNIVERSITY TEMPLE WING$10,000,000
TASIS DORADO EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC$7,578,494
TASIS DORADO$4,000,000
FACING HISTORY AND OURSELVES$2,000,000
WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE$2,000,000
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY$1,640,000
WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CROHNS$1,250,000
LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT$1,200,000
CARLOS BELTRAN BASEBALL ACADEMY FOUNDATION$1,200,000
THE POSSE FOUNDATION$1,025,000
INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION$1,000,000
NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN FUND INC$833,333
OPEN MEDICINE FOUNDATION$600,000
OPERATION OPPORTUNITY FOUNDATION$600,000

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 (FY19–24, $780k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10% — the area typically sits at 10%. 60% 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.

55%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$53M · 38 repeat orgs$44M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +72% since the first grant, against +62% for the ones you funded once.

38 repeat relationships — 22 still active in FY2024, 16 since wound down; 27 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$53M

$2.5M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+72%

+62%

Still filing today

55%

54%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 27% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $42M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EducationHealthArts & CultureHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentPhilanthropyOther

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

TD
TASIS DORADO EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC
3× · 2022–2024 · $15M · revenue +176% · 35% of their budget
HS
HACKLEY SCHOOL
3× · 2019–2021 · $9.4M · revenue +38%
TP
THE POSSE FOUNDATION
6× · 2019–2024 · $3.5M · revenue +49%

Funded once

PL
POSSIBILITY LABS(VISIBLE LABS VC)
one grant, 2023 · $500k
MP
MORYS PRESERVATION INC
one grant, 2023 · $475k · revenue -42% · 52% of their budget
CG
COMMON GOOD
one grant, 2019 · $400k

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.

World Privacy Forum

The world privacy forum is dedicated to reimaging privacy in a digital era through ground-breaking, in-depth privacy research and consumer education of the highest quality. our vision is to empower people with the knowledge, rights, and…

Public Benefit

Quincy Institute for Responsible

The quincy institute promotes ideas that move u.s. foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of international peace. our vision is a world where peace is the norm and war the exception.

Community Improvement

Brave New Software Project Inc

Brave New Software is dedicated to keeping the Internet open and decentralized. We build open source software tools that helps users access an uncensored internet, and create a more open and protected information infrastructure for us all.

Civil Rights

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

Watson Institute

Watson institute provides a new model of education that aims to develop the next generation of leaders and entrepreneurs

Youth Development

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Public policy research/education dedicated to principles of free enterprise & limited government.

—

Witness Inc

Witness helps people use video and technology to protect and defend human rights. the organization operates globally. witness' global team designs solutions, provides guidance, and co-develops strategies that enable human rights defenders…

International

New Visions for Public Schools Inc

Improving the quality of education in nyc public schools and ensuring that all students have access to effective schools that enable them to graduate from high school fully prepared for college and career.

Education

Progressive Leadership Initiative Education Fund Inc

The Progressive Leadership Initiative Education Fund is on a mission to strengthen self awareness and expand the leadership potential of diverse young people through research, peer educational programs, and personalized leadership coaching.

Youth Development

United States Naval Institute

To advance professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power.

—

Global Learning Exchange Initiative

To empower elementary school children in Guatemala by providing access to an unparalleled literacy curriculum and professional teacher training that creates new opportunity pathways for the next generation.

International

Playlab Education Inc

We build public ai infrastructure for teaching and learning that deeply empowers those closest to kids to create a better education system for all.

Education

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Peer Health Exchange Inc and the most unlike its peers is Hackley School. 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 26 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/40

the rest of the field

11%

206,164/1,819,525

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

38 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)

38/38

Grantees still filing

28/38

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$48,736,791Education$24,057,494Health$12,683,333Arts & Culture$5,823,750Recreation & Sports$2,840,000Youth Development$2,020,000Crime & Legal$1,700,000

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.

The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift FundNY15.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · The Chicago Community Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc

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 GLENN GREENBERG AND LINDA VESTER 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.

2025

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

1get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%

typical government reliance, FY20–25

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: SPARK THE WAVE.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

insufficient risk

Limited financial data in public filings.

Track record & reputation

medium risk

4 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 2.1× since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 582682680 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 SPARK THE WAVE, 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

Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 71% 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 Glenn Greenberg and Linda Vester?

Find your warmest path to Glenn Greenberg and Linda Vester 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.

GLENN GREENBERG AND LINDA VESTER

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

38 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Glenn Greenberg and Linda Vester?

More from the funding graph

GLENN GREENBERG AND LINDA VESTER

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

38 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Glenn Greenberg and Linda Vester?

More from the funding graph