Skip to content

· Public charity

Internal Audit Foundation

To shape, expand, and advance knowledge of internal auditing by developing and disseminating timely, relevant information and insights that address the needs of our stakeholders globally.

$119k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$13k
Largest
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.

Education$538kScience & Tech$19k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $51,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $119,059 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $68,059 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.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k5 grants · $38k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $13k
$9,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$7.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TEXAS A&M FOUNDATION$13,000
SEATTLE UNIVERSITY$9,000
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY$9,000
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH$8,500
PITTSBURG STATE UNIVERSITY$6,000
UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO$5,500
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 62% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BENTLEY UNIVERSITY IA: $22k → 8%ST JOHNS UNIVERSITY: $7k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO: $14k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS - AUSTIN: $10k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS - DALLAS: $21k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: $25k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO: $10k → 21%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $13k → 22%PITTSBURG STATE UNIVERSITY: $6k → 18%KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH & SERVICE FOUNDATION: $11k → 8%SEATTLE UNIVERSITY: $17k → 9%DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: $13k → 14%LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND A&M COLLEGE: $20k → 19%BENTLEY UNIVERSITY IA: $8k → 8%UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO: $6k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS: $10k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: $20k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO: $9k → 21%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $13k → 22%KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH & SERVICE FOUNDATION: $11k → 8%SEATTLE UNIVERSITY: $14k → 9%DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: $11k → 14%LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY: $12k → 19%BENTLEY UNIVERSITY IA: $7k → 8%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $12k → 22%KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH & SERVICE FOUNDATION: $10k → 8%SEATTLE UNIVERSITY: $12k → 9%LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY: $12k → 19%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $11k → 22%KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH & SERVICE FOUNDATION: $9k → 8%SEATTLE UNIVERSITY: $11k → 9%LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY: $12k → 19%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $7k → 22%KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH: $9k → 8%SEATTLE UNIVERSITY: $10k → 9%LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY: $10k → 19%KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH: $9k → 8%SEATTLE UNIVERSITY: $10k → 9%LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY: $10k → 19%KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH: $9k → 8%SEATTLE UNIVERSITY: $9k → 9%LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY: $9k → 19%Louisiana State University: $9k → 19%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
IL
NY
MA
NV
KS
LA
GA
TX
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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

79%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$438k · 10 repeat orgs$119k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
8

Total granted

$438k
$100k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+30%
+146%

Still filing today

30%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 63% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $19k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • SU
    SEATTLE UNIVERSITY
    7× · 2017–2024 · $83k · revenue +62%
  • BENTLEY UNIVERSITY
    3× · 2019–2021 · $37k · revenue +30%
  • DU
    DEPAUL UNIVERSITY
    2× · 2017–2020 · $24k · revenue +25%

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS - DALLAS
    one grant, 2017 · $21k
  • LS
    LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND A&M COLLEGE
    one grant, 2017 · $20k
  • LS
    LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2018 · $12k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field
04the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 20 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
6/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SEATTLE UNIVERSITY: $82,688 · OtherSEATTLE UNIVERSITYLOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY: $62,000 · OtherLOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITYKENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY: $57,000 · OtherKENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITYTEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $55,103 · OtherTEXAS A&M UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: $45,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF HOUSTONBOARD OF REGENTS NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION: $37,431 · OtherBOARD OF REGENTS NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATIONUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS - DALLAS: $20,667 · OtherLOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND A&M COLLEGE: $20,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO: $19,000 · OtherSTATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK COLLEGE AT PURCHASE: $19,000 · Other+5 more: $48,200 · Other+5 moreBENTLEY UNIVERSITY: $36,891 · EducationBENTLEY UNIVERSITYDEPAUL UNIVERSITY: $23,900 · EducationDEPAUL UNIVERSITYTexas A&M Foundation: $13,000 · EducationTexas A&M Foundati…KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND SERVICE FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · EducationKENNESAW STATE UNI…ST JOHN'S UNIVERSITY NEW YORK: $7,000 · EducationST JOHN'S UNIVERSI…
Other$466,089Education$90,791

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSEATTLE UNIVERSITY: $82,688 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetBENTLEY UNIVERSITY: $36,891 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetDEPAUL UNIVERSITY: $23,900 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTexas A&M Foundation: $13,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND SERVICE FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetST JOHN'S UNIVERSITY NEW YORK: $7,000 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.

  • Who funds SEATTLE UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds BENTLEY UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds DEPAUL UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds Texas A&M Foundation ↗
  • Who funds KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND SERVICE FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds ST JOHN'S UNIVERSITY NEW YORK ↗

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.

American Chemical SocietyDC13.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Chemical Society · Tulsa Community 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 Internal Audit Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Internal Audit Foundation. 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%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Bentley University: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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 20 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 Internal Audit’s filings →

More from the funding graph