How much did GRAVES TECHNOLOGIES FOUNDATION grant in FY2024?

Philanthropy$81kHealth$80kInternational$70kEducation$63kEnvironment$50kCivil Rights$20kPublic Safety & Disaster$10kFood & Nutrition$5kHuman Services$50Other$191k

02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k2 grants · $6k
$10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$50k–250k1 grant · $51k

$10,000

Median grant

States reached

$2.3M

Total assets

Largest grants

GIVE LIVELY FOUNDATION$51,000
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION$10,000
WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION$4,000
CHARCOT-MARIE-TOOTH ASSOCIATION$2,000

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 (FY23–23, $50) land where the poverty rate runs at 7% — the area typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants skew toward lower-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.

59%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$334k · 13 repeat orgs$236k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +77% since the first grant, against +72% for the ones you funded once.

13 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$334k

$234k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+77%

+72%

Still filing today

92%

42%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

InternationalHealthEducationEnvironmentPhilanthropyHuman ServicesOther

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

GL
GIVE LIVELY FOUNDATION
2× · 2023–2024 · $81k · revenue +52327%
HR
Human Rights Watch Inc
3× · 2020–2022 · $30k · revenue +22%
MA
Make A Wish Foundation Of Arizona
2× · 2021–2022 · $25k · revenue +23%

Funded once

UF
UNITED FOOD BANKFEEDING AMERICA
one grant, 2020 · $50k
NP
National Pediatric Cancer Foun
one grant, 2021 · $20k
MEDSHARE INTERNATIONAL INC
one grant, 2023 · $15k · revenue -11%

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.

The Water Research Foundation

Advancing the science of water to improve the quality of life.

Environment

Ucsf Foundation Investment Company

the organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the UCSF Foundation.

Education

Global Fund for Children

To advance the rights and opportunities of children and youth worldwide.

Arts & Culture

Npr Foundation

—

National Public Radio Inc

Arts & Culture

Allosource

Allosource responsibly processes and distributes human donated tissue that enhances and saves lives.

Health

Afp Foundation for Philanthropy

Our mission is to advance philanthropic investment and impact in the nonprofit sector.we accomplish this by:- serving as a catalyst for the nonprofit sector to address the sector's greatest issues - acting as a convener between the…

—

International Biomedical Research

We empower promising biomedical researchers through: a) financially supporting international collaborative research b) providing professional & career development c) creating a well-resourced networking platform

Health

International Women's Forum Inc

We unite our global community to advance women's leadership today and tomorrow.

Education

Media Development Investment Fund Inc

We invest in media that provide the news, information and debate that people need to build free, thriving societies. mdif has invested more than $296 million in 146 independent news businesses in 47 countries since 1996. why we are here:…

Philanthropy

Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International

A people-centered approach to the conservation of gorillas and their habitats in Africa

—

Global Impact Investing Network Inc

Increase the scale and effectiveness of impact investing to solve systemic problems facing people and the planet.

Philanthropy

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Network for Good and the most unlike its peers is Mayo Clinic. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

04the grantee network

23 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)

23/23

Grantees still filing

19/23

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$206,045Philanthropy$81,000Health$79,500International$70,150Education$62,540Environment$50,000Civil Rights$20,000

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.

Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust IncIN9.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 organisation GRAVES TECHNOLOGIES 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

4get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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: MESA PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~19 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 7 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

7 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 3.4× since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 860550594 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 MESA PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION, 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

On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 19 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2025; revenue grew over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 4% of their budget — diversified.
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 Graves Technologies Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Graves Technologies Foundation 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.

GRAVES TECHNOLOGIES FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

23 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Graves Technologies Foundation?

More from the funding graph

GRAVES TECHNOLOGIES FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

23 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Graves Technologies Foundation?

More from the funding graph