· Private foundation
Mastercard Impact Fund
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k2 grants · $70k
- $50k–250k15 grants · $2.0M
- $250k+35 grants · $60M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| DAI GLOBAL LLC | $17,689,631 |
| AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC | $4,663,378 |
| COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC (CARE) | $4,126,037 |
| THE ASPEN INSTITUTE | $3,545,929 |
| CARIBOU DIGITAL (UK) LTD | $3,500,000 |
| NEW VENTURE FUND | $3,445,487 |
| ACCION INTERNATIONAL | $2,817,490 |
| AUC CONSORTIUM | $2,159,600 |
| FUNDACION CAPITAL FUNDAK | $1,897,653 |
| CARIBOU DIGITAL (UK) LTD (EUR) | $1,702,807 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,244,700 |
| THE HOWARD UNIVERSITY | $1,066,000 |
| THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO | $1,000,000 |
| BUSINESS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY | $1,000,000 |
| WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE | $1,000,000 |
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 US giving — 78% of grant dollars ($282M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 22% that went abroad ($82M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY19–24, $7.8M) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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
Beyond the US — 22% of all-years giving ($82M)
22 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 7% of Mastercard Impact Fund’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 +19% since the first grant, against +17% for the ones you funded once.
82 repeat relationships — 38 still active in FY2024, 44 since wound down; 9 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, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3.4M 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
THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC6× · 2019–2024 · $26M · revenue +192%
COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC5× · 2020–2024 · $14M · revenue +37%- TATHE AMERICAN INDIA FOUNDATION4× · 2020–2023 · $9.7M · revenue +110% · 87% of their budget
Funded once
- GPGATES PHILANTHROPY PARTNERSone grant, 2020 · $17M · revenue -88%
- GAGAVI ALLIANCEone grant, 2021 · $16M
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · $2.0M
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.
The global impact investing network, inc. is dedicated to increasing the scale and effectiveness of impact investing to solve systemic problems facing people and the planet. impact investments are investments made into companies,…
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.
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
Activate empowers scientists to reinvent the world by bringing their research to market. activate partners with u.s. based funders, research institutions, and other pillars of the hard technology community to help entrepreneurial…
Organization mission the observer research foundation america orf america is an independent, non-partisan, and nonprofit organization in washington dc dedicated to addressing policy challenges facing the united states, india, and their…
Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…
A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
Chief executives for corporate purpose (cecp) is the only business counsel and network dedicated to driving measurable returns on purpose. we promote responsible purpose-driven business as it increases customer loyalty, builds employee…
Water.org's goal is to bring safe water and sanitation to the world through access to small, affordable loans.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Local Initiatives Support Corporation and the most unlike its peers is The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fund for Strategic Innovation. 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 31 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) — 1% 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.
108 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. 108 of the 181 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 THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds ACCION INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds GATES PHILANTHROPY PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN INDIA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds DATAKIND INC ↗
- Who funds THE URBAN INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE INC ↗
- Who funds BLACK ECONOMIC ALLIANCE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AUC CONSORTIUM INC ↗
- Who funds ACCELERATOR FOR AMERICA ↗
- Who funds New York University ↗
- Who funds THE HOWARD UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Trustees of Tufts College ↗
- Who funds BENEFITS DATA TRUST ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds TSINGHUA EDUCATION FOUNDATION NA INC ↗
- Who funds THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds CAPITAL IMPACT PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds Mercy Corps ↗
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: Tides Foundation · The Rockefeller Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Ford Foundation · Gates Foundation · New Venture Fund · The Kresge Foundation · Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · The Nielsen Foundation Inc · Wells Fargo Foundation · WK Kellogg 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 Mastercard Impact Fund 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.
- Mercy Corps — 47% of income from government
- Urban League of Broward County Inc — 44% of income from government
- Center On Rural Innovation Inc — 37% of income from government
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Americares Foundation 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Mastercard Impact Fund?
Find your warmest path to Mastercard Impact Fund 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.