Skip to content
Icap Foundation Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Icap Foundation Inc

Its FY2018 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$68k
Granted FY2018
10
Grants FY2018
4
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2018.

Public Safety & Disaster$60kHuman Services$27kHousing & Shelter$16kEducation$11kPhilanthropy$10kInternational$8kAnimals$5kHealth$4k
02FY2018 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2018

  • Under $10k7 grants · $18k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $50k
$5,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$12k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HARLEM CHILDRENS ZONE INC$25,000
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY NYC FUND INC$15,000
CITY YEAR INC$10,000
US-KOSOVO FOUNDATION$6,000
GOVERNORS ISLAND CORPORATION$5,000
HOPE AUTISM FOUNDATION$4,000
REACH THE WORLD COMPANY$1,000
EXHALE TO INHALE INC$1,000
THE CARTER BURDEN NETWORK$500
COMMUNITIES OF FAITH FOR HOUSING IN$500
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.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY17–18, $90k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 96% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%HOPE AUTISM FOUNDATION: $4k → 5%AMERICAN RED CROSS NEW JERSEY REGIO: $50k → 11%AMERICAN RED CROSS NEW JERSEY REGIO: $10k → 11%EXHALE TO INHALE INC: $1k → 17%HARLEM CHILDRENS ZONE INC: $25k → 17%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.
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.
03Its field

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.

1
The Columbia Foundation
Philanthropy
2
Redlich Horwitz Foundation
—
3
Hurwitz Family Foundation
—
4
New York Foundation
—
5
Rusi (Us) Foundation
Philanthropy
6
Kadist Collection Manager Inc
Arts & Culture
7
Rzh Foundation
Philanthropy
8
Thomas and Caroline Kurtz Foundation
—
9
The Mayer - Rothschild Foundation
Health
10
The Janus Henderson Foundation
—
11
Harvard Club of Ny Historical Foundation
Environment
12
Berggruen Institute
Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is City Year Inc; the most unlike its peers is Us-Kosovo Foundation. 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

12 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. 12 of the 13 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $60,000 · Human ServicesAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and BranchesHARLEM CHILDREN'S ZONE INC: $25,000 · Human ServicesHARLEM CHILDREN'S ZONE INCHOPE AUTISM FOUNDATION: $4,000 · Human Services+1 more: $1,000 · Human ServicesHABITAT FOR HUMANITY NYC FUND INC: $15,000 · Housing & ShelterHABITAT FOR …CITY YEAR INC: $10,000 · OtherCOMMUNITIES OF FAITH FOR HOUSING INC: $500 · OtherCARTER BURDEN NETWORK INC: $500 · OtherKALUZ FOUNDATION: $10,000 · PhilanthropyUS-KOSOVO FOUNDATION: $6,000 · InternationalHEART TO HEART INTERNATIONAL INC: $1,920 · InternationalGOVERNORS ISLAND CORPORATION: $5,000 · AnimalsREACH THE WORLD COMPANY: $1,000 · Education
Human Services$90,000Housing & Shelter$15,000Other$11,000Philanthropy$10,000International$7,920Animals$5,000Education$1,000

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 budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $60,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHARLEM CHILDREN'S ZONE INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY NYC FUND INC: $15,000 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetCITY YEAR INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKALUZ FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetHEART TO HEART INTERNATIONAL INC: $1,920 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEXHALE TO INHALE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetREACH THE WORLD COMPANY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCARTER BURDEN NETWORK INC: $500 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.

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.

The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
The Bank of America Charitable Foundation IncNC7.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Icap Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Icap Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →median 21%
  • City Year Inc: 21% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
2report 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
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.

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 13 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 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Icap’s filings →

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 endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home