Skip to content

· Private foundation

Good Forever Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$992k
Granted FY2024still arriving
15
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$300k
Largest
01What it funds
0188% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2024.

Science & Tech$654kHealth$150kReligion$135kArts & Culture$113kEducation$102kSocial Science$80kOther$0
02FY2024 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $1k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $107k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $584k
  • $250k+1 grant · $300k
$22,954
Median grant
5
States reached
$18M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PALISADE RESEARCH INC$300,000
TOPOS INSTITUTE$156,000
AMODO$135,000
EARENDIL$113,000
BRAMBLE CENTER FOR INFORMATION$80,000
PANOPLIA LABORATORIES INC$50,000
EPISTEA$50,000
Individual grant recipient$22,954
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA$19,000
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY$17,000
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE$16,000
MATHEMATICAL METAPHYSICS INSTITUTE$11,432
FAR AI INC$10,341
Individual grant recipient$10,000
CENTER FOR AI SAFETY$1,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

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

US giving: 84% of grant dollars ($1.1M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 16% that went abroad ($208k) is mapped below.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY23–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 27% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%EARENDIL: $113k → 10%PANOPLIA LABORATORIES INC: $50k → 8%WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE: $16k → 11%PALISADE RESEARCH INC: $300k → 10%MACHINE INTELLIGENCE: $10k → 10%FAR AI INC: $125k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $19k → 14%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $17k → 18%MATHEMATICAL METAPHYSICS INSTITUTE: $11k → 16%TOPOS INSTITUTE: $156k → 10%CENTER FOR AI SAFETY: $1k → 10%BRAMBLE CENTER FOR INFORMATION: $80k → 11%CENTER FOR APPLIED RATIONALITY: $150k → 10%FAR AI INC: $10k → 11%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.

Beyond the US: 16% of all-years giving ($208k)

2 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
United Kingdom$158k · 2 grants
Czechia$50k · 1 grant
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
03Its field
04the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 16 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)
6/6
Grantees still filing
3/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PALISADE RESEARCH INC: $300,000 · OtherPALISADE RESEARCH INCAMODO: $135,000 · OtherAMODOEARENDIL: $113,000 · OtherEARENDILBRAMBLE CENTER FOR INFORMATION: $80,000 · OtherBRAMBLE CENTER FOR INFORMATIONPANOPLIA LABORATORIES INC: $50,000 · OtherPANOPLIA LABORATORIES INCEPISTEA: $50,000 · OtherEPISTEA+4 more: $65,954 · Other+4 moreTOPOS INSTITUTE: $156,000 · EducationTOPOS INSTITUTEUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $19,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF S…CENTER FOR APPLIED RATIONALITY: $150,000 · HealthCENTER FOR AP…FAR AI INC: $135,341 · Science & TechFAR AI INCMATHEMATICAL METAPHYSICS INSTITUTE: $11,432 · Science & TechMATHEMATICAL …+1 more: $1,000 · Science & Tech
Other$793,954Education$175,000Health$150,000Science & Tech$147,773

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTOPOS INSTITUTE: $156,000 over 1y, 8.5% of budgetCENTER FOR APPLIED RATIONALITY: $150,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetFAR AI INC: $135,341 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $19,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMATHEMATICAL METAPHYSICS INSTITUTE: $11,432 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetCenter for AI Safety Inc: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds TOPOS INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR APPLIED RATIONALITY ↗
  • Who funds FAR AI INC ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
  • Who funds MATHEMATICAL METAPHYSICS INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds Center for AI Safety Inc ↗

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.

Silicon Valley Community FoundationCA14.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Founders Pledge Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Good Forever Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Good Forever Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Good Forever Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Good Forever Foundation 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 16 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Good Forever’s filings →

    More from the funding graph