Skip to content
Impact Investing Charitable Trust at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Charitable trust

Impact Investing Charitable Trust

Investing charitable capital to create economic, social, and spiritual transformation

$34M
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$30M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead

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

0
’17
0
’18
0
’19
0
’20
18
’21
6
’22
0
’23
1
’24

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

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 2024.

Philanthropy$157MInternational$5.1MReligion$2.2MEducation$686kHousing & Shelter$600kHealth$500kCivil Rights$100kYouth Development$42kOther$0
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $31,290,027, the rows itemized in this filing. The $34,142,936 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $2,852,909 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$600,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$431M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
IMPACT INVESTING CHARITABLE FOUNDATION$30,190,027
SOUL SHELTER$600,000
THE FLOURISHING COOPERATIVE$500,000
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%CHRISTIAN LOVE IN ACTION FOUNDATION: $2.0M → 14%SOUL SHELTER: $600k → 15%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MN
IL
MA
OH
CO
NE
KY
VA
AZ
KS
TN
NC
OK
MS
AL
GA
TX
FL
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
Christian Foundation
—
2
Practical Christianity Foundation
Religion
3
Global Faith Network
Human Services
4
God's Gift Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Christian Literature for Africa

Literature for africa

Religion
6
International Christian Partners Llc

Childrens Home and Ministry in India

Religion
7
Christian Financial Outreach and Impact Foundation Inc
—
8
International Impact Ministries in
Religion
9
Global Gospel Initiative Inc
Religion
10
Asia Us Impact

Religious

Religion
11
Explore God Network
—
12
International Christian Publishers

Religious corp, charitable, educational and cultural, conduct all activities relate to publishingchristian literature

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Alliance Defending Freedom; 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.
04the grantee network

18 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. 18 of the 27 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
13/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

IMPACT INVESTING CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC: $159,957,288 · PhilanthropyIMPACT INVESTING CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INCChristian Love In Action Foundation Inc: $2,000,000 · Human ServicesSOUL SHELTER INC: $600,000 · Human ServicesREFORMATION CHURCH: $1,228,000 · OtherTHE FLOURISHING COOPERATIVE: $500,000 · OtherCHURCH AND FAMILY LIFE: $100,000 · OtherACTIVATEEN: $100,000 · Other+13 more: $335,973 · OtherCHRISTIAN HOME EDUCATORS OF COLORADO: $606,040 · EducationFOUNDATION FOR AMERICAN CHRISTIAN EDUCATION: $60,000 · Education+2 more: $20,000 · EducationDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $500,000 · HealthJAMES127: $150,000 · Housing & ShelterALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: $100,000 · Civil Rights
Philanthropy$159,957,288Human Services$2,600,000Other$2,263,973Education$686,040Health$500,000Housing & Shelter$150,000Civil Rights$100,000

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 budgetIMPACT INVESTING CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC: $159,957,288 over 8y, 42% of budgetCHRISTIAN HOME EDUCATORS OF COLORADO: $606,040 over 1y, 20% of budgetSOUL SHELTER INC: $600,000 over 1y, 83% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $500,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJAMES127: $150,000 over 1y, 87% of budgetALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: $100,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCHURCH AND FAMILY LIFE: $100,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR AMERICAN CHRISTIAN EDUCATION: $60,000 over 1y, 5.2% of budget4AFRICA: $50,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetLIFESONG FOR ORPHANS INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetEMERALD YOUTH FOUNDATION: $41,558 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetFINISHING FUND MANAGEMENT: $17,856 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetRESTOREUS FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetChristian Heritage Home Educators of Washington: $10,000 over 1y, 7.3% 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.

Impact Investing Char…Natl Christian Charit…Christian Community F…American Endowment Fo…Vanguard Charitable E…Morgan Stanley Global…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Impact Investing Charitable Foundation IncKS17.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Impact Investing Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Impact Investing Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% 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 · 0–15%
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.
04Through Plinth

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.

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 27 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Impact Investing’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