· Private foundation
Michael & Susan Dell Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k305 grants · $1.4M
- $10k–50k295 grants · $7.2M
- $50k–250k109 grants · $15M
- $250k+126 grants · $141M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Charter School Growth Fund | $50,000,000 |
| University of Texas at Austin | $8,492,618 |
| Mobile Loaves & Fishes Inc | $7,586,321 |
| United Jewish Appeal | $2,500,000 |
| University of Texas at Austin | $2,106,020 |
| University of Texas at Austin | $2,085,748 |
| Charter School Growth Fund | $2,000,000 |
| Communities Foundation of Texas | $1,774,968 |
| New Leaders Foundation | $1,551,429 |
| Region 4 Education Service Center | $1,521,000 |
| America's Frontier Fund | $1,500,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,322,451 |
| New Schools Venture Fund | $1,250,000 |
| Education Analytics | $1,215,000 |
| The British Asian Trust | $1,104,167 |
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 (FY21–24, $14.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 83% 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.
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 +16% since the first grant, against +7% for the ones you funded once.
766 repeat relationships — 533 still active in FY2024, 233 since wound down; 124 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, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $27M 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
- TITNTP INC4× · 2021–2024 · $4.9M · revenue +63%
- CICOMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS OF CENTRAL TEXAS4× · 2021–2024 · $4.0M · revenue +1%
- TITRANSCEND INC3× · 2021–2023 · $3.7M · revenue +105%
Funded once
- HCHealth Community Supportone grant, 2018 · $35M
- SPSAMARITAN'S PURSEgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $2.5M · revenue +40%
- IMINTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPSone grant, 2022 · $2.0M · revenue +8%
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 University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.
Rooted in the liberal arts & sciences & lutheran expression of the christian faith, & is committed to offering a challenging education that develops qualities of mind, spirit, & body necessary for a rewarding life of leadership & service…
To educate students to be ethical and socially responsible leaders in a global community.
Saint xavier university, a catholic institution inspired by the heritage of the sisters of mercy, educates persons to search for truth, think critically, communicate effectively and serve wisely and compassionately in support of human…
Provides innovative education in a dynamic urban setting. dedicated to academic excellence and community engagement,we prepare students of diverse backgrounds with the knowledge, skill,and experience to lead meaningful lives as informed…
Wilson college empowers students to be confident and critical thinkers, creative visionaries, effective communicators, honorable leaders, and agents of justice.
University of the sciences prepares students to become leaders, innovators, and skilled practitioners in the sciences, the health professions, and related disciplines. we deliver excellence in teaching, research, and service through a safe…
We provide exemplary interdisciplinary programs for a community of scholar-practitioners within a distributed learning model grounded in student-driven inquiry and leading to enhanced knowledge.
Golden gate university prepares individuals to lead and serve by providing high quality, practice-based educational programs in law, taxation, business and related professions - as a nonprofit institution - in an innovative and challenging…
Capital university transforms lives by empowering an inclusive community of learners through engaging academic, co-curricular, and professional experiences.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Schreiner University and the most unlike its peers is Idp Foundation 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 50 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 26% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 25% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.5% lost their exemption, against 15% 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.
559 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. 559 of the 1,250 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 CHARTER FUND INC D/B/A CHARTER SCHOOL GROWTH FUND ↗
- Who funds MOBILE LOAVES & FISHES INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY FOR GREATER AUSTIN ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION OF TEXAS INC ↗
- Who funds THE BLACKBAUD GIVING FUND ↗
- Who funds TNTP INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS OF CENTRAL TEXAS ↗
- Who funds TRANSCEND INC ↗
- Who funds Texas 2036 ↗
- Who funds THE SAFE ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds NEW SCHOOLS FUND ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES INC ↗
- Who funds MISSION CAPITAL ↗
- Who funds TEACH PLUS INC ↗
- Who funds BREAKTHROUGH ↗
- Who funds SAMARITAN'S PURSE ↗
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: Gates Foundation · Carnegie Corporation of New York · Walton Family Foundation Inc · National Collegiate Athletic Association · Council of Independent Colleges · New Schools Fund · Ecmc Foundation · New Profit Inc · Greater Texas Foundation · United Way for Greater Austin · Austin Community Foundation Inc · St David's 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 Michael & Susan Dell Foundation 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.
- Jewish Vocational Service Inc — 39% of income from government
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- Saga Innovations Inc — 28% of income from government
- Rodel Charitable Foundation - De — 20% of income from government
- International Youth Foundation — 17% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- Tech Goes Home Incorporated — 10% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Economic Mobility Pathways Inc — 6% of income from government
- Education Resource Strategies Inc — 4% of income from government
- Uaspire Inc — 1% of income from government
- The Bottom Line Inc — 0% of income from government
- Achieving the Dream 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 Michael & Susan Dell Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Michael & Susan Dell Foundation 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.