Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation Dossiers
Plinth

· Private foundation

Gula Tech Foundation Inc

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.

$1.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$1.0M
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2024.

Science & Tech$2.6MEmployment$1.1MHuman Services$1.0MEducation$600kCrime & Legal$400kCommunity Improvement$350kPublic Safety & Disaster$300kYouth Development$250kOther$0
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$1,000,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$13M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CYBER READY CLINIC INC$1,000,000
02The need
03

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 (FY24–24, $1.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%CYBER READY CLINIC INC: $1.0M → 6%0%20%40%50%more need →
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 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

IL
MI
NY
MA
NV
WY
IN
OH
NJ
CA
VA
MD
DE
NC
DC
TX

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.

04

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 5% of Gula Tech Foundation Inc’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.

Gula Tech Foundation Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address

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.

03Your 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.

1
National Cyber Partnership Inc

Offering real-world training at the undergraduate and graduate levels for veterans and others for high-skill cyber jobs.

Education
2
Women in Cyber Security

To support recruitment, retention, and advancement of women in the professional field of cybersecurity; help increase the number of women security professionals and strengthen the cybersecurity workforce; and bring together women in…

Education
3
Applied Computer Security Associate Inc
—
4
Cyber Defense Center

Providing cyber security for goverment and school agencies

Science & Tech
5
United Cybersecurity Alliance Inc

We provide cybersecurity educational programs for career development and job placement

Public Benefit
6
Cybersecurity Association Inc

The purpose of the Cybersecurity Association is to grow and serve the cybersecurity ecosystem through advocacy, education, and building community. We are a trusted community for companies and organizations that view cybersecurity as a…

Community Improvement
7
Cyberwarrior Foundation Inc

We inspire, prepare, and support the next diverse generation of cybersecurity experts/professionals by providing training, hands-on experiences, mentoring, and certification for youth and adults so they can be able to work and succeed in…

Education
8
Az Cyber Initiative Inc

We are dedicated to unlocking opportunities for young people who are interested in cyber and emergent technology. we collaborate with workforce partners across the state to offer programs that provide careerconnected and workbased learning…

Community Improvement
9
Cyber Safe Inc
—
10
Center for Internet Security Inc

The mission of the center for internet security is to enhance the security readiness and response of public and private sector entities, with a commitment to excellence through collaboration.

Public Benefit
11
CyberUp

To elevate the cybersecurity workforce by igniting curiosity, developing talent, and transforming career pathways.

Science & Tech
12
Womcy Corp

Educational programs on cybersecurity

Employment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Dark Enterprises Inc and the most unlike its peers is Cyberwyoming Alliance. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

05the grantee network

18 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. 18 of the 31 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.

7
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/18
Grantees still filing
7/18
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

BLACK CYBERSECURITY ASSOCIATION — $500,000 · OtherBLACK CYBERSECURITY ASSOCIATIONIndividual grant recipient — $300,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientMULTIPLE HUB INC — $250,000 · OtherMULTIPLE HUB INCUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS — $250,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXASGIRL SECURITY — $200,000 · OtherGIRL SECURITYNATIONAL CRYSTOLOGIC FOUNDATION — $150,000 · OtherKNOWIBILITY INC — $150,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient — $150,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient — $150,000 · OtherMIDALTLANTIC GIGABIT INNOVATION COLLABORATORY — $100,000 · OtherTHEOREM MEDIA INC — $100,000 · OtherNATIONAL CYBERSECURITY CENTER — $100,000 · OtherICS VILLAGE INC — $300,000 · OtherICS VILLAGE INCPARTNERS IN CARE MARYLAND INC — $100,000 · Other+2 more — $100,000 · OtherTHE SHADOWSERVER FOUNDATION INC — $300,000 · EducationTHE SHADOWSERVER FOU…CODEPATHORG — $250,000 · EducationCODEPATHORGGRF FOUNDATION — $250,000 · EducationGRF FOUNDATIONDARK ENTERPRISES INC — $200,000 · EducationDARK ENTERPRISES INCSecurEd Inc — $150,000 · EducationSecurEd IncYEAR UP INC — $100,000 · EducationYEAR UP INCCyber Ready Clinic Inc — $1,000,000 · Human ServicesCyber Ready Clin…PRECISION INSTITUTE — $350,000 · EmploymentPRECISION I…WOMEN BUSINESS COLLABORATIVE — $350,000 · EmploymentWOMEN BUSIN…NPOWER INC — $300,000 · Community ImprovementISACA Foundation — $100,000 · Community ImprovementCYBERCRIME SUPPORT NETWORK — $200,000 · Crime & LegalIntelligence for Good Inc — $200,000 · Crime & LegalNational Cyber Security Alliance — $250,000 · Public BenefitCYBERWYOMING ALLIANCE — $100,000 · Public Benefit
Other$2,900,000Education$1,250,000Human Services$1,000,000Employment$700,000Community Improvement$400,000Crime & Legal$400,000Public Benefit$350,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetCyber Ready Clinic Inc — $1,000,000 over 1y, 99% of budgetPRECISION INSTITUTE — $350,000 over 1y, 50% of budgetWOMEN BUSINESS COLLABORATIVE — $350,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetTHE SHADOWSERVER FOUNDATION INC — $300,000 over 1y, 8.2% of budgetICS VILLAGE INC — $300,000 over 2y, 55% of budgetNPOWER INC — $300,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetCODEPATHORG — $250,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetGRF FOUNDATION — $250,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetNational Cyber Security Alliance — $250,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetDARK ENTERPRISES INC — $200,000 over 1y, 22% of budgetCYBERCRIME SUPPORT NETWORK — $200,000 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetIntelligence for Good Inc — $200,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetSecurEd Inc — $150,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetCYBERWYOMING ALLIANCE — $100,000 over 1y, 83% of budgetYEAR UP INC — $100,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPARTNERS IN CARE MARYLAND INC — $100,000 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetISACA Foundation — $100,000 over 1y, 58% of budgetThe Diana Initiative Inc — $50,000 over 1y, 19% of budget
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.

American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE5× affinity6 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 organization Gula Tech Foundation Inc 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.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%6%25%56%100%your share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →median 40%
  • Partners in Care Maryland Inc — 40% of income from government
  • Year Up Inc — 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
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: 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.

04Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Gula Tech Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to Gula Tech Foundation Inc 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 31 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2024, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines