· Charitable trust
Impact Investing Charitable Trust
Investing charitable capital to create economic, social, and spiritual transformation
Read this first · the figures below need context
97% of Impact Investing Charitable Trust’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Impact Investing Charitable Foundation Inc, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 1 organization directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 3 grants below total $31,290,027 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $34,142,936 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $2,852,909 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| IMPACT INVESTING CHARITABLE FOUNDATION | $30,190,027 |
| SOUL SHELTER | $600,000 |
| THE FLOURISHING COOPERATIVE | $500,000 |
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 human-services grants (FY22–24, $2.6M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% 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
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.
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.
Literature for africa
Childrens Home and Ministry in India
Religious
Religious corp, charitable, educational and cultural, conduct all activities relate to publishingchristian literature
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Alliance Defending Freedom and the most unlike its peers is Restoreus Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 15 years old; the field is 25. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 17% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 9% 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.
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 27 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
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 IMPACT INVESTING CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Christian Love In Action Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds CHRISTIAN HOME EDUCATORS OF COLORADO ↗
- Who funds SOUL SHELTER INC ↗
- Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds JAMES127 ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM ↗
- Who funds CHURCH AND FAMILY LIFE ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR AMERICAN CHRISTIAN EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds 4AFRICA ↗
- Who funds LIFESONG FOR ORPHANS INC ↗
- Who funds EMERALD YOUTH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds DOMINION INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds FINISHING FUND MANAGEMENT ↗
- Who funds Christian Heritage Home Educators of Washington ↗
- Who funds RESTOREUS FOUNDATION ↗
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: Impact Investing Charitable Foundation Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Christian Community Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Impact Investing Charitable Trust 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.
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% 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 Impact Investing Charitable Trust?
Find your warmest path to Impact Investing Charitable Trust 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.