Skip to content
Munger Charitable Trust Number Eight at a glance

· Private foundation

Munger Charitable Trust Number Eight

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$12M
Granted FY2025still arriving
17
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$5.8M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Civil Rights$6.8MPublic Benefit$3.5MHealth$684kInternational$206kPhilanthropy$199kArts & Culture$146kEducation$63kCommunity Improvement$49kOther$0
02FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $99k
  • $50k–250k9 grants · $970k
  • $250k+6 grants · $11M
$100,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$146M
Total assets

Anchored by a single position: about 92% of reported assets are held in Berkshire Hath Cl A.

Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OUR AMERICAN FUTURE FOUNDATION$5,805,594
BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION EDUCATION FUND$2,755,346
EVERYBODY VOTES$684,105
RIGHT TO VOTE FOUNDATION$681,393
THE VOTER PROJECT FUND$293,500
RIGHT TO VOTE FOUNDATION$282,996
INSTITUTE FOR STATE EFFECTIVENESS$205,510
SOUTH ASIAN IMPACT FOUNDATION$101,923
NEW VENTURE FUND$100,000
THE VOTER PROJECT FUND$100,000
VOTO LATINO FOUNDATION$99,657
OHIO PROGRESSIVE COLLABORATIVE$99,551
TIDES FOUNDATION$99,352
ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN VOTE$98,738
WHITNEY MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ART$65,000
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 98% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%SIGNET SOCIETY: $24k → 8%TIDES FOUNDATION: $99k → 10%SIGNET SOCIETY: $26k → 14%WHITNEY MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ART: $65k → 17%OUR AMERICAN FUTURE FOUNDATION: $5.8M → 14%OHIO PROGRESSIVE COLLABORATIVE: $100k → 15%ASIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $49k → 13%TEACHERS AS SCHOLARS: $12k → 8%Marlborough School: $20k → 14%BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION EDUCATION FUND: $2.8M → 14%TEACHERS AS SCHOLARS: $11k → 8%MARLBOROUGH: $19k → 14%RIGHT TO VOTE FOUNDATION: $681k → 14%TEACHERS AS SCHOLARS: $10k → 8%SIGNET SOCIETY: $11k → 14%RIGHT TO VOTE FOUNDATION: $283k → 14%TEACHERS AS SCHOLARS: $10k → 8%SIGNET SOCIETY: $10k → 14%SOUTH ASIAN IMPACT FOUNDATION: $102k → 14%SIGNET SOCIETY: $10k → 14%INSTITUTE FOR STATE EFFECTIVENESS: $206k → 14%NEW VENTURE FUND: $100k → 14%NATIONAL RESTRICTING FOUNDATION: $49k → 14%ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN VOTE: $99k → 14%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.
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 5% of Munger Charitable Trust Number Eight’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Munger Charitable Trust Number Eightlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 73% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its 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
America Votes

The Organization was established to coordinate and promote progressive issues, policies, initiatives, and referenda, and to pursue electoral reform that expands access to the ballot.

Community Improvement
2
Voter Formation Project

Voter formation project's mission is to increase participation in local, state, and national elections through digital communication, experimentation, and knowledge-sharing.

Civil Rights
3
Verified Voting Foundation

Strengthen democracy for all voters by promoting the responsible use of technology in all elections.

—
4
Vox Populi Foundation
Civil Rights
5
Black Voters Matter Fund Inc

Our goal is to increase power in our communities through effective voting. We increase voter registration and help develop voting infrastructure and to pursue policies that expands access to the ballot.

—
6
Democracy Works Inc

The organization's mission is to leverage web-technologies to improve civic engagement and voter education.

Civil Rights
7
Defend the Vote Action Fund

To sustain and support the prioritization of comprehensive voting rights and democracy reform legislation at all levels of government.

—
8
New American Leaders Action Fund Inc

New american leaders action fund (nalaf) is building a democracy that represents and includes all people by engaging new voters, supporting new americans as they run for office, and expanding civic engagement.

Civil Rights
9
Texas Justice Fund

To support legal, political & administrative efforts to protect fair voting.

—
10
Voteamerica

The mission of voteamerica is to strengthen united states democracy by increasing voter turnout.

Civil Rights
11
All Americans Vote

All Americans Vote aims to motivate underrepresented Americans to engage in the most patriotic of exercises - voting!

Civil Rights
12
America Votes Education Fund

America Votes Education Fund is dedicated to expanding all voters' access to the ballot through a grantmaking program.

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Voter Project Fund; the most unlike its peers is Asian Community Development Council. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

15 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. 15 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
6/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OUR AMERICAN FUTURE FOUNDATION: $5,805,594 · Civil RightsOUR AMERICAN FUTURE FOUNDATIONRIGHT TO VOTE FOUNDATION: $964,389 · Civil RightsRIGHT TO VOTE FOUNDATIONTHE VOTER PROJECT FUND: $393,500 · Civil Rights+3 more: $247,764 · Civil RightsBLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION EDUCATION FUND: $2,755,346 · OtherBLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION …EVERYBODY VOTES: $684,105 · OtherEVERYBODY VOTES+5 more: $263,551 · Other+5 moreINSTITUTE FOR STATE EFFECTIVENESS: $205,510 · InternationalSouth Asian Impact Foundation: $101,923 · Public BenefitNEW VENTURE FUND: $100,000 · EnvironmentTIDES FOUNDATION: $99,352 · PhilanthropyTEACHERS AS SCHOLARS INC: $42,500 · EducationMARLBOROUGH SCHOOL: $20,000 · EducationASIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $49,367 · Community Improvement
Civil Rights$7,411,247Other$3,703,002International$205,510Public Benefit$101,923Environment$100,000Philanthropy$99,352Education$62,500Community Improvement$49,367

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 budgetOUR AMERICAN FUTURE FOUNDATION: $5,805,594 over 1y, 5.6% of budgetBLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION EDUCATION FUND: $2,755,346 over 1y, 37% of budgetRIGHT TO VOTE FOUNDATION: $964,389 over 1y, 64% of budgetOhio Progressive Collaborative: $99,551 over 1y, 14% of budgetAsian & Pacific Islander American Vote: $98,738 over 1y, 7.7% of budgetNATIONAL REDISTRICTING FOUNDATION: $49,369 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetTEACHERS AS SCHOLARS INC: $42,500 over 4y, 3.7% of budgetMARLBOROUGH SCHOOL: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Silicon Valley Commun…Hopewell FundThe San Francisco Fou…Vanguard Charitable E…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Silicon Valley Community FoundationCA14.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Hopewell Fund · The San Francisco Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Munger Charitable Trust Number Eight funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Munger Charitable Trust Number Eight. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Munger Charitable Trust Number Eight’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