Skip to content
Manifold for Charity Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Manifold for Charity Inc

Manifund supports impactful projects by developing innovative funding systems and software focusing on AI safety and effective altruism.

$3.1M
Granted FY2024still arriving
24
Grants FY2024still arriving
8
States reached
$280k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

Science & Tech$1.3MFood & Nutrition$943kHuman Services$371kPublic Safety & Disaster$175kPhilanthropy$157kEducation$106kAnimals$100kCommunity Improvement$100kOther$0
02FY2024 · 24 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 24 grants below total $1,577,660, the rows itemized in this filing. The $3,120,203 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,542,543 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 $10k2 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k11 grants · $273k
  • $50k–250k10 grants · $1.0M
  • $250k+1 grant · $280k
$49,087
Median grant
8
States reached
$1.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MATS Research Inc$279,583
Center for AI Safety Inc$190,000
Effective Ventures Foundation USA I$106,000
1Day Sooner Inc$100,000
Players Philanthropy Fund$100,000
Center for Land Economics Inc$100,000
The Center for Innovative Governanc$100,000
PauseAI US$100,000
Innovate Animal Ag$100,000
Ashgro Inc$58,900
Ashgro$57,367
Lightcone Infrastructure Inc$49,087
The Tarbell Center for AI Journalis$32,000
Rethink Priorities$26,760
ALLFED Institute$25,100
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 (FY23–24, $371k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Rethink Priorities: $325k → 10%Rethink Priorities: $27k → 10%Rethink Priorities: $19k → 10%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

NY
MA
CA
CO
MD
DE
DC
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $416k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 3 regions, $230k to organizations and $186k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$256k · 62% · 5 grants · 1 person

Stated purpose: Scoping Developmental Interpretability Next Step · AI Safety Textbook · AI Driven Market Alternatives for a post AGI world

East Asia and the Pacific$100k · 24% · 3 grants · 1 person

Stated purpose: Support EA NZ's operations · Good Ancestors Policy expenses · Help launch the Technical Alignment Research Accelerator

Sub-Saharan Africa$60k · 14% · 1 person

Stated purpose: One Health Wastewater Surveillance for Emerging Pathogens in Jos and Combat global antibiotic resistance

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. 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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

33%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 3 repeat orgs$2.2M to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
3

Total granted

$1.1M
$1.2M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+201%

Still filing today

100%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 31% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.0M went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’22’23’24
Science & TechEducationPublic Safety & DisasterPhilanthropyHuman ServicesPublic BenefitOther
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

  • MR
    MATS RESEARCH INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $470k
  • RP
    Rethink Priorities
    2× · 2023–2024 · $371k · revenue -1%
  • AI
    ASHGRO INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $274k · revenue +101%

Funded once

  • MM
    Manifold Markets Inc
    one grant, 2023 · $827k
  • FA
    FAR AI INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $400k · revenue +201%
  • TC
    THE CLEAR FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $9k · revenue +79%
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

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
Safe Artificial Intelligence Forum Institute

To drive global coordination that minimizes extreme AI risks and ensures the benefits of AI are shared by all. SAIF fosters responsible governance to reduce catastrophic risks through shared understanding and collaboration among key global…

—
2
Center for Ai Policy Inc

The center for ai policy (caip) is a nonpartisan research organization dedicated to mitigating the catastrophic risks of ai through policy development and advocacy. operating out of washington, dc, caip works to ensure ai is developed and…

Science & Tech
3
Palisade Research

Our mission is to research and communicate the capabilities and risks posed by advanced artificial intelligence systems. our current work focuses on cybersecurity, deception, and persuasion. we aim to communicate the state of these…

Science & Tech
4
Center for Humane Technology

Center for Humane Technology is a nonprofit dedicated to ensuring that the most consequential technologies actually serve humanity. We bring clarity to how the tech ecosystem works in order to shift the incentives that drive it.

Science & Tech
5
Clarity Ai Research Inc

Transluce is an independent research lab that builds open, scalable technology for understanding ai systems and steering them in the public interest.

Science & Tech
6
Partnership On Ai to Benefit People and Society

Bringing diverse voices together across global sectors, disciplines, and demographics so developments in ai advance positive outcomes for people and society.

Science & Tech
7
Redwood Research Group Inc

Ai research - redwood research conducted research on ai interpretability and adversarial training techniques. as part of the research, we published blog posts and laid the foundation for research projects.

Science & Tech
8
Ethical Ai Governance Group Inc

The Ethical AI Governance Group was formed by a group of leading venture capital investors enterprise executives and startup entrepreneurs. We understand the risks AI systems can pose to privacy accountability and transparency and are…

Education
9
Future Tech Insights Inc

The organization provides public education on artificial intelligence.

Public Benefit
10
Responsible Innovation Labs Inc

Building infrastructure that helps high-performing startups drive competitive advantage while advancing human flourishing and avoiding downstream harms to people, communities, and planet.

Science & Tech
11
OpenAI Foundation fka OpenAI Inc

OpenAIs mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.

Science & Tech
12
CarbonPlan

Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Effective Ventures Foundation Usa Inc; the most unlike its peers is Center for Land Economics Inc. 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

19 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. 19 of the 22 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
10/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MATS RESEARCH INC: $469,761 · Science & TechMATS RESEARCH INCFAR AI INC: $400,100 · Science & TechFAR AI INCCenter for AI Safety Inc: $190,000 · Science & TechCenter for AI Safety IncManifold Markets Inc: $827,333 · OtherManifold Markets Inc1DAY SOONER INC: $100,000 · Other1DAY SOONER INCINNOVATE ANIMAL AG: $100,000 · OtherINNOVATE ANIMAL AG+7 more: $165,383 · Other+7 moreASHGRO INC: $273,837 · PhilanthropyASHGRO INCPLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND INC: $112,500 · PhilanthropyPLAYERS PHIL…+1 more: $8,880 · PhilanthropyRethink Priorities: $371,329 · Human ServicesRethink Prio…EFFECTIVE VENTURES FOUNDATION USA INC: $106,000 · EducationPAUSEAI US: $100,000 · EducationLightcone Infrastructure Inc: $49,087 · EducationCenter for Land Economics Inc: $100,000 · Public BenefitCenter for Innovative Governance Research: $100,000 · Community Improvement
Science & Tech$1,059,861Other$1,192,716Philanthropy$395,217Human Services$371,329Education$255,087Public Benefit$100,000Community Improvement$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 budgetMATS RESEARCH INC: $469,761 over 2y, 4.4% of budgetFAR AI INC: $400,100 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetRethink Priorities: $371,329 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetASHGRO INC: $273,837 over 2y, 6.9% of budgetCenter for AI Safety Inc: $190,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetPLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND INC: $112,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetEFFECTIVE VENTURES FOUNDATION USA INC: $106,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCenter for Innovative Governance Research: $100,000 over 1y, 7.9% of budgetINNOVATE ANIMAL AG: $100,000 over 1y, 10.0% of budgetPAUSEAI US: $100,000 over 1y, 35% of budget1DAY SOONER INC: $100,000 over 1y, 7.0% of budgetLightcone Infrastructure Inc: $49,087 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetALLFED INSTITUTE: $25,100 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetBLUEPRINT BIOSECURITY: $25,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetHealthLearn Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 25% of budgetSENTINEL RESEARCH: $24,910 over 1y, 12% of budgetNew Roots Institute: $15,481 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetTHE CLEAR FUND: $8,880 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.

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.

Founders Pledge IncGood Ventures Foundat…Silicon Valley Commun…Effective Ventures Fo…Every OrgHumane America Animal…Daffy Charitable FundVanguard Charitable E…National Philanthropi…Paypal Charitable Giv…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Founders Pledge IncNY28.3× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Founders Pledge Inc · Good Ventures Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Effective Ventures Foundation USA Inc · Every Org · Humane America Animal Foundation · Daffy Charitable Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Manifold for Charity Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Manifold for Charity Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    4get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Manifold for Charity Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Manifold for Charity Inc 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 22 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 Manifold for Charity’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