· Private foundation
Good Ventures Foundation
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k33 grants · $149k
- $10k–50k120 grants · $3.3M
- $50k–250k177 grants · $21M
- $250k+235 grants · $282M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CENTRE FOR EFFECTIVE ALTRUISM INC | $10,500,000 |
| MALARIA CONSORTIUM | $9,381,474 |
| OPEN ROAD IMPACT INC | $8,850,983 |
| THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH | $8,328,964 |
| 80000 HOURS LTD | $6,600,000 |
| ALPENGLOW GROUP LTD | $6,374,319 |
| GDI-SOLUTIONS INC | $5,339,190 |
| CHANCELLOR MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD | $4,703,785 |
| INTERNATIONAL AIDS VACCINE INITIATIVE INC | $4,391,492 |
| ELEANOR CROOK FOUNDATION | $4,250,000 |
| INSTITUT DE FORMULATION DES VACCINS (CH) LTD | $3,804,570 |
| JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY | $3,746,247 |
| TARA CLIMATE LTD | $3,500,000 |
| OPEN ROAD IMPACT INC | $3,456,582 |
| BLUEPRINT BIOSECURITY | $3,250,000 |
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 US giving — 67% of grant dollars ($1.3B). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 33% that went abroad ($611M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $35.2M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 98% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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
Beyond the US — 33% of all-years giving ($611M)
37 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 9% of Good Ventures Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +28% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
405 repeat relationships — 204 still active in FY2025, 201 since wound down; 216 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 60% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $112M 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
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY7× · 2019–2025 · $107M · revenue +35%- TAThe Against Malaria Foundation5× · 2017–2024 · $49M · revenue +29% · 35% of their budget
- EVEFFECTIVE VENTURES FOUNDATION USA INC6× · 2017–2025 · $40M · revenue +86% · 41% of their budget
Funded once
- HIHORIZON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC SERVICEgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $12M · revenue +201%
- TATHE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD INCone grant, 2023 · $10M · revenue -71%
- OPOPEN PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INCone grant, 2024 · $10M
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.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
To improve the lives of people through innovative scientific and engineering research.
The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…
To provide accurate, objective information and analysis on international strategic issues for legislators, diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business leaders, economists, the military, defense commentators, journalists,…
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
Our mission is to invest in and accelerate the development of the most promising future leaders in biomedical research with global impact.
See schedule onorc at the university of chicago conducts research and data science on critical societal issues to guide decision-making and the development of programs and public policy. our experts identify relationships and trends, and…
Activate empowers scientists to reinvent the world by bringing their research to market. activate partners with u.s. based funders, research institutions, and other pillars of the hard technology community to help entrepreneurial…
Orcid provides an identifier for individuals to use with their name as they engage in research, scholarship, and innovation activities. we provide open tools that enable transparent and trustworthy connections between researchers, their…
Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Evidence Action and the most unlike its peers is Rachel's Hug-a-Bears. 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.
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 16 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 19% of your grantees by number, and just 13% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
245 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. 245 of the 1,002 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds The Against Malaria Foundation ↗
- Who funds The Rand Corporation ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds EFFECTIVE VENTURES FOUNDATION USA INC ↗
- Who funds HELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds GATES PHILANTHROPY PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds OpenAI Foundation fka OpenAI Inc ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds The Imperial College Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds SIGHTSAVERS INC ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds ELEANOR CROOK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Open Road Impact Inc ↗
- Who funds Arc Research Institute ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HORIZON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds REDWOOD RESEARCH GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds Center for AI Safety Inc ↗
- Who funds The End Fund 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: Effective Ventures Foundation USA Inc · Founders Pledge Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Open Philanthropy Action Fund · Humane America Animal Foundation · Gates Foundation · Rethink Charity · The Clear Fund · Every Org · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Rsf Social Finance Inc · Tipping Point Private 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 Good Ventures Foundation 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.
- National Bureau of Economic Research Inc — 48% of income from government
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- The Broad Institute Inc — 19% of income from government
- Veterans Education and Research Association of Northern New England Inc — 17% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- Yale University — 12% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Northeastern University — 7% of income from government
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Inc — 6% of income from government
- Oregon Health & Science University Foundation — 1% of income from government
- Igem Foundation Inc — 1% of income from government
- Rutgers University Foundation — 0% of income from government
- Williams College — 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Good Ventures Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Good Ventures 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.