· Public charity
Internet Society
To promote the open development, evolution, and use of the internet for the benefit of all people throughout the world.
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 19 grants below total $1,285,975 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $5,361,734 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $4,075,759 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 · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $12k
- $10k–50k10 grants · $230k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $793k
- $250k+1 grant · $250k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NetHope Inc | $250,000 |
| Allied Media Projects Inc | $240,662 |
| Aspiration | $192,768 |
| IETF Trust LLC | $150,000 |
| UN Technical Cooperation Activities | $100,000 |
| Oxfam America | $60,000 |
| People Centered Internet Inc | $50,000 |
| USTTI | $40,140 |
| SFBAYISOC | $28,039 |
| Association for Progressive Comm | $26,000 |
| Association for Progressive Comm | $25,000 |
| Freedom House | $25,000 |
| Internet Society of Puerto Rico Chapter Inc | $23,500 |
| Equitable Origin Inc | $19,500 |
| Copia Institute | $15,000 |
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 (FY20–23, $365k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 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
Grants abroad, by region — $3.7M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 9 regions, $3.6M to organizations and $79k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: EMPOWR PPL · GROW INT · Empowering People to Take Action
Stated purpose: EMPOWR PPL · GROW INT · STRENGTHEN INT
Stated purpose: EMPOWR PPL · GROW INT · Empowering People to Take Action
Stated purpose: EMPOWR PPL · GROW INT · Empowering People to Take Action
Stated purpose: EMPOWR PPL · Empowering People to Take Action
Stated purpose: GROW INT · EMPOWR PPL · Empowering People to Take Action
Stated purpose: EMPOWR PPL · GROW INT · Empowering People to Take Action
Stated purpose: EMPOWR PPL · GROW INT
Stated purpose: EMPOWR PPL · GROW INT
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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
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 +44% since the first grant, against +28% for the ones you funded once.
32 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2024, 21 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
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, 36% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $821k 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
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON FOUNDATION4× · 2018–2022 · $1.5M · revenue +156%- ISINTERNET SECURITY RESEARCH GROUP5× · 2017–2021 · $775k · revenue +250%
UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC6× · 2018–2024 · $600k · revenue +2%
Funded once
- TSTHE SHADOWSERVER FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2020 · $400k · revenue +21%
- MFMOZILLA FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $250k · revenue +35%
- COCity of Wilsonone grant, 2021 · $180k
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.
Internet2 promotes the missions of its members by providing both leading-edge network capabilities and unique partnership opportunities that together facilitate the development, deployment and use of revolutionary internet technologies.
At the internet society foundation, we focus on funding initiatives that strengthen the internet in function and reach so that it can effectively serve all people. our work advances the vision of the internet society (isoc): the internet…
Protecting and advancing freedom of expression and privacy in information and communications technology (ict) sector.
The open technology fund aims to advance internet freedom globally by supporting the research, development, implementation, and maintenance of technologies that provide secure and uncensored access to the internet.
Epic's mission is to secure the fundamental right to privacy in the digital age for all people through advocacy, research, and litigation.
To protect and preserve the free, innovative and decentralized architecture of the internet that has enabled it to evolve into a powerful engine for economic growth, freedom and prosperity. by channeling the strengths, cultures and stories…
Scientific research in information processing; fostering dev. of nat'l inf. infra.
Orcid provides an identifier for individuals to use with their name as they engage in research, scholarship, and innovation activities. we provide open tools that enable transparent and trustworthy connections between researchers, their…
Brave New Software is dedicated to keeping the Internet open and decentralized. We build open source software tools that helps users access an uncensored internet, and create a more open and protected information infrastructure for us all.
International consortium of investigative journalists, inc.'s (icij) mission is to show people how the world really works through stories that rock the world; forcing positive change.
See schedule oustelecom exists to ensure members can compete, grow and thrive to build a world where families, enterprises and communities are connected through the power of broadband.our member companies have committed a considerable…
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Access Now and the most unlike its peers is Ipnsig Inc. 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 24 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) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
49 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. 49 of the 73 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 DIAMOND KEY SECURITY NFP ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF OREGON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds INTERNET SECURITY RESEARCH GROUP ↗
- Who funds IETF Trust ↗
- Who funds UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE SHADOWSERVER FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds MOZILLA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NETHOPE INC ↗
- Who funds ALLIED MEDIA PROJECTS INC ↗
- Who funds Aspiration Aspirationtechorg ↗
- Who funds FIFTH WARD COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds PCS FOR PEOPLE ↗
- Who funds SOUTH UNION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INC SOUTH UNION CDC ↗
- Who funds FREEDOM HOUSE ↗
- Who funds CODE FOR SCIENCE & SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESSIVE COMMUNICATIONS ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FOUNDATION INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds US TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAINING INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY ↗
- Who funds WORLD WIDE WEB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION FOR A NEW AMERICAN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL SELF RELIANCE ↗
- Who funds NANOG INC ↗
- Who funds OXFAM-AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds EQUITABLE ORIGIN INC ↗
- Who funds VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc ↗
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: Internet Society Foundation · The Ford Foundation · Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers · Mozilla Foundation · John S and James L Knight Foundation · Democracy Fund Inc · Omidyar Network Fund Inc · New Venture Fund · Foundation to Promote Open Society · Tides Foundation · Luminate Foundation Inc · Craig Newmark 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 Internet Society 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.
- Code for Science & Society Inc — 2% of income from government
- Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc — 1% of income from government
- Oxfam-America Inc — 0% 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.