· Public charity
Impactassetsinc
The mission of this corporation is to be the preeminent partner for impact investing and charitable giving, helping us all achieve our greatest impact.
Read this first · the figures below need context
52% of Impactassetsinc’s FY2024 grant dollars went to National Philanthropic Trust, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 2451 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2023, the last year Impactassetsinc named its own grantees at scale: 2365 organizations, $249M. It is dated, not current.
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 2,654 grants below total $249,245,550 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $262,237,083 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $12,991,533 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.
By grant size · FY2023
- Under $10k418 grants · $2.9M
- $10k–50k1322 grants · $25M
- $50k–250k687 grants · $69M
- $250k+227 grants · $152M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| GLOBALGIVING | $11,987,424 |
| EAST BAY MEDITATION CENTER | $5,456,000 |
| AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION | $3,000,000 |
| SCHWAB CHARITABLE FUND | $2,847,280 |
| ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC | $2,780,810 |
| IGIFTFUND | $2,738,491 |
| ATMOS LTD | $2,500,000 |
| JUBILEE GIFT GALAXY INC | $2,370,000 |
| THRESHOLD FOUNDATION | $2,101,000 |
| POSSIBILITY LABS | $2,002,500 |
| MENOMINI YOU | $2,000,000 |
| HELP KITCHEN | $2,000,000 |
| CLEAN FUTURE FORUM INC | $1,982,221 |
| VIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC | $1,975,000 |
| FOUNDATION FOR CIVIC LEADERSHIP | $1,900,000 |
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 (FY18–24, $63.4M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 82% 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 21% of Impactassetsinc’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.
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +38% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
1512 repeat relationships — 1122 still active in FY2023, 390 since wound down; 228 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call). Read against FY2023, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 69% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $80M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
GLOBALGIVING FOUNDATION INC8× · 2017–2024 · $34M · revenue +34%- FFFOUNDATION FOR CIVIC LEADERSHIP INC8× · 2017–2024 · $18M · revenue +244% · 92% of their budget
- ALATMOS LTD4× · 2021–2024 · $11M · revenue +123% · 96% of their budget
Funded once
- BBAYADAgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $92M · revenue +705%
- UOUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTONone grant, 2019 · $3.2M
- GRGATHERING ROOTS WELLNESS DBA SACRED LAND COLLECTIVEone grant, 2021 · $2.8M · revenue -83% · 71% of their budget
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
We work collaboratively to build open tools and resources for the evaluation and deployment of robust climate programs. We share analyses through public communication and collaboration with journalists in order to foster effective climate…
Increase the scale and effectiveness of impact investing to solve systemic problems facing people and the planet.
New Roots Institute is a nonprofit empowering the next generation with knowledge and training to end factory farming.
Upturn advances equity and justice in the design, governance, and use of technology.
Witness helps people use video and technology to protect and defend human rights. the organization operates globally. witness' global team designs solutions, provides guidance, and co-develops strategies that enable human rights defenders…
United for a Fair Economy challenges the concentration of wealth and power by using popular economics education, trainings and creative communications to support social movements working for a resilient, sustainable and equitable economy.
The international peace institute is an independent, non-profit organization working to strengthen inclusive multilateralism for a more peaceful and sustainable planet. through its research, convening, and strategic advising, ipi provides…
Environment next supports individuals, nonprofits and businesses around the world on solutions to complex climate issues.
Supporting industry transformation towards climate-positive and regenerative practices and business models by helping climate-motivated professionals lead such transformation through their careers, company-building, and intrapreneurship.
A people-centered approach to the conservation of gorillas and their habitats in Africa
the organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the UCSF Foundation.
To create change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is As You Sow and the most unlike its peers is Ashtalakshmi Temple. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 25 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 10% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 11% 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.
1826 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 1826 of the 2,000 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 NATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST ↗
- Who funds BAYADA ↗
- Who funds GiveClear Foundation ↗
- Who funds FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
- Who funds GLOBALGIVING FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Anpo Inc ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR CIVIC LEADERSHIP INC ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HOPEWELL FUND ↗
- Who funds CHARITIES AID FOUNDATION AMERICA ↗
- Who funds ATMOS LTD ↗
- Who funds DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds BLACK FARMER FUND INC ↗
- Who funds DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds POSSIBILITY LABS ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL GOOD FUND INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
- Who funds Clean Future Forum Inc ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY WORLDWIDE ↗
- Who funds ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC ↗
- Who funds SHELTERWOOD COLLECTIVE ↗
- Who funds THE BLACKBAUD GIVING FUND ↗
- Who funds Jubilee Gift Galaxy Inc ↗
- Who funds Sustainable Economies Law Center ↗
- Who funds EKVNV YEFOLECVLKE ↗
- Who funds GIVEDIRECTLY INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF ↗
- Who funds VIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC ↗
- Who funds PLENTIFUL ↗
- Who funds THE SCHOTT FOUNDATION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds MENOMINI YOU INC ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds COMMON COUNSEL 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: The Libra Foundation · Women Donors Network · Rsf Social Finance Inc · Possibility Labs · Solidaire Network Inc · Willow Redistribution Foundation · Common Counsel Foundation · The Schmidt Family Foundation · General Service Foundation · Threshold Foundation · Flock Inc · Windward Fund
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 Impactassetsinc 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.
- World Relief Corp of National Association of Evangelicals — 67% of income from government
- Northeast Native Network of Kinship and — 44% of income from government
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- Social Finance Inc — 12% of income from government
- Jobs for the Future Inc — 11% of income from government
- Root Capital Inc — 9% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- University of Miami — 5% of income from government
- The Trustees of the Smith College — 1% of income from government
- Wesleyan University — 1% of income from government
- Rider University — 1% 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.