· Private foundation
Golden Peacock Foundation
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 it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k5 grants · $25k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $50k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $320k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SAFE HANDS FOR GIRLS | $120,000 |
| THE OPEN INSULIN FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| PUBLIC RIGHTS PROJECT | $50,000 |
| CIRCLE OF INSPIRATION | $50,000 |
| BALSA POLICY INSTITUTE | $30,000 |
| TEXAS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL | $20,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY22–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 85% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
How this is measured
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
5 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 18% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $325k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- COCIRCLE OF INSPIRATION3× · 2022–2024 · $72k
- IGIndividual grant recipient3× · 2022–2024 · $14k
- IGIndividual grant recipient3× · 2022–2024 · $14k
Funded once
- PSPOWDERHOUSE STUDIOS LIMITEDone grant, 2023 · $50k
- KHKENYA HELPgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $8k · revenue +48%
- TCTHE CRUCIBLEgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $7k · revenue +34%
How this is measured
Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
Closest unfunded matches
The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Bitcoin policy institute (bpi) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that conducts research on bitcoin and emerging technologies, provides charitable legal support to defend bitcoin users and developers' rights, and educates the…
Blueprint biosecurity is a nonprofit that conducts and supports research to identify, evaluate, and promote technical countermeasures against emerging airborne pathogen threats, helping to prevent future pandemics by strengthening…
The institute for progress (ifp) is a non-partisan think tank focused on innovation policy. our organization works to accelerate and shape the direction of scientific, technological and industrial progress.
Ai research - redwood research conducted research on ai interpretability and adversarial training techniques. as part of the research, we published blog posts and laid the foundation for research projects.
Research on public policy issures
Software Consulting and Education for Students at UC Berkeley.
Advance use of health policies and progr
The lawfare institute is an independent and nonpartisan organization dedicated to the hard choices in national security, law, and policy. we produce academic-quality analysis with magazine-level readability at the pace of news to enable…
Ibis reproductive health drives change through bold, rigorous research and principled partnerships that advance sexual and reproductive autonomy, choices and health worldwide.
How this is measured
9 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. 9 of the 17 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.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
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.
Co-funders
Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization Golden Peacock Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Golden Peacock Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
Play a game based on Golden Peacock’s filings →