· Public charity
New Venture Fund
NEW VENTURE FUND, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization providing fiscal sponsorship, aims to help build a just, equitable, and sustainable future by getting the right types of philanthropic capital into the hands of people with the right ideas, at the right (cont.
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 854 grants below total $359,563,437 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $459,928,320 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $100,364,883 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 $10k30 grants · $229k
- $10k–50k181 grants · $4.1M
- $50k–250k433 grants · $52M
- $250k+210 grants · $303M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND | $58,932,923 |
| CLEAN SLATE INITIATIVE INC | $19,910,098 |
| CLIMATE AND CLEAN ENERGY EQUITY FUND | $17,996,330 |
| CAMBIAR EDUCATION | $12,229,335 |
| AMERICA VOTES | $11,018,005 |
| FLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOM | $9,489,777 |
| FINES AND FEES JUSTICE CENTER INC | $8,889,158 |
| NORTH FUND | $8,055,000 |
| MANRESA ISLAND CORP | $7,718,955 |
| ILLUMINATIVE INC | $5,484,872 |
| UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC | $5,285,000 |
| NEW YORK UNIVERSITY | $5,000,000 |
| HOPEWELL FUND | $4,441,891 |
| GLOBAL IMPACT | $4,111,706 |
| NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION | $4,000,000 |
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 human-services grants (FY17–24, $38.6M) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 85% 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 — $60M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 9 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT · INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS · ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
Stated purpose: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS · CIVIL RIGHTS, SOCIAL ACTION, ADVOCACY · YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION
Stated purpose: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS · CIVIL RIGHTS, SOCIAL ACTION, ADVOCACY · CAPACITY BUILDING
Stated purpose: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS · ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS · CIVIL RIGHTS, SOCIAL ACTION, ADVOCACY
Stated purpose: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS · CAPACITY BUILDING · ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
Stated purpose: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS · CIVIL RIGHTS, SOCIAL ACTION, ADVOCACY · CAPACITY BUILDING
Stated purpose: CIVIL RIGHTS, SOCIAL ACTION, ADVOCACY · CAPACITY BUILDING · ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
Stated purpose: YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION · INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS · CIVIL RIGHTS, SOCIAL ACTION, ADVOCACY
Stated purpose: YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION · CAPACITY BUILDING
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 +39% since the first grant, against +17% for the ones you funded once.
1163 repeat relationships — 444 still active in FY2024, 719 since wound down; 212 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, 61% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $103M 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
- AVAmerica Votes8× · 2017–2024 · $98M · revenue +495% · 34% of their budget
- CFCENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE2× · 2019–2020 · $25M · revenue ×21
- VRVOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT5× · 2018–2024 · $22M · revenue +173% · 29% of their budget
Funded once
- ISINTERNATIONAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TUITION SERVICES INCone grant, 2017 · $19M
- GFGATES FOUNDATIONone grant, 2020 · $16M · revenue +18%
- RARECAST ACCELERATE LLCone grant, 2023 · $12M
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.
Mobilizing passionate public service leaders.
We work collaboratively to build open tools and resources for the evaluation and deployment of robust climate programs. We share analyses through public communication and collaboration with journalists in order to foster effective climate…
United for a Fair Economy challenges the concentration of wealth and power by using popular economics education, trainings and creative communications to support social movements working for a resilient, sustainable and equitable economy.
Fund for Justice is a nationally connected social impact research and advocacy organization that works to achieve fundamental, systemic reform by addressing policies and practicies that prevent individuals from reaching their full…
Bring people together to research, educate, & advocate for a fair, equitable dc legal system.
Upturn advances equity and justice in the design, governance, and use of technology.
Civicus is a global alliance of civil society organisations and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society throughout the world.
Strengthen the legal services sector's expertise and capacity to advance justice and equity.
A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…
The international peace institute is an independent, non-profit organization working to strengthen inclusive multilateralism for a more peaceful and sustainable planet. through its research, convening, and strategic advising, ipi provides…
To serve the public interest by improving the quality and effectiveness of public utility regulation.
California forward (ca fwd) brings people together across regions to improve government and create resilient growth statewide.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Accountableus and the most unlike its peers is Roderick and Solange MacArthur. 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 22 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 23% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% 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.
1824 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. 1824 of the 2,000 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 SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND ↗
- Who funds CO-IMPACT PHILANTHROPIC FUNDS INC ↗
- Who funds America Votes ↗
- Who funds CLEAN SLATE INITIATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds NORTH FUND ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE ↗
- Who funds VOTER REGISTRATION PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds ECONOMIC INNOVATION GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds CLIMATE AND CLEAN ENERGY EQUITY FUND ↗
- Who funds JOHN & MARY R MARKLE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GATES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HOPEWELL FUND ↗
- Who funds Upstream USA Inc ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds ACCOUNTABLEUS ↗
- Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
- Who funds CAMBIAR EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds LAST MILE HEALTH ↗
- Who funds NATURE AND CULTURE INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds THE JUST TRUST FOR EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds New York University ↗
- Who funds CODE FOR AMERICA LABS INC ↗
- Who funds FLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOM ↗
- Who funds CERES INC ↗
- Who funds FINES AND FEES JUSTICE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds Global Impact ↗
- Who funds Manresa Island Corp ↗
- Who funds ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC ↗
- Who funds AFF FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds E PLURIBUS UNUM INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
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: The Just Trust for Education · Climate and Clean Energy Equity Fund · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · Windward Fund · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · State Voices · Hopewell Fund · Center for Community Change · Democracy Fund Inc · Foundation to Promote Open Society · Proteus Fund Inc
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 New Venture 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.
- Bonneville Environmental Foundation — 100% of income from government
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 11% of income from government
- Casa Inc — 8% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Northeastern University — 7% of income from government
- Upstream Usa Inc — 4% of income from government
- Code for Science & Society Inc — 2% of income from government
- Ceres 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.