Skip to content

· Private foundation

On Semiconductor Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$2.6M
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$2.0M
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

78% of On Semiconductor Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to American Online Giving Foundation Inc, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Organizations named directly on the return

2
’20
1
’21
1
’22
1
’23
0
’24

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0186% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Philanthropy$6.7MEducation$145kInternational$82kHuman Services$33kFood & Nutrition$10kHealth$8kArts & Culture$5kOther$0
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $12k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $25k
  • $250k+2 grants · $2.6M
$13,177
Median grant
1
States reached
$88k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION$2,016,107
UK ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION$543,585
Individual grant recipient$13,177
CANADIAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION$11,798
CHARITABLE GIVING$8,207
IRISH ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION$3,512
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.

US giving: 79% of grant dollars ($5.6M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 21% that went abroad ($1.5M) is mapped below.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION: $2.0M → 10%GIVE2ASIA: $27k → 10%FEEDMORE WNY: $10k → 13%VISITORG PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATION: $16k → 17%PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY: $25k → 14%HOWARD UNIVERSITY: $25k → 14%NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY: $25k → 16%HAMPTON UNIVERSITY: $25k → 14%AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION: $1.4M → 10%UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION: $50k → 17%AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION: $1.0M → 10%AMERICAN INDIA FOUNDATION: $5k → 17%AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION: $816k → 10%AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION: $106k → 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
CA
VA
MD
DE
NC
DC
TX

Beyond the US: 21% of all-years giving ($1.5M)

7 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
United Kingdom$1.3M · 8 grants
Czechia$50k · 2 grants
Canada$33k · 4 grants
South Korea$33k · 1 grant
Germany$27k · 5 grants
Ireland$15k · 5 grants
Australia$523 · 2 grants
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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 97% of On Semiconductor Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

On Semiconductor Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 21% 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.4M · 6 repeat orgs$274k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
13

Total granted

$1.4M
$274k

Still filing today

0%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24
InternationalEducationPublic Safety & DisasterHealthPhilanthropyOther
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

  • UO
    UK ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.3M
  • CO
    CANADIAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION
    4× · 2021–2024 · $33k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    5× · 2020–2024 · $27k

Funded once

  • UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2020 · $50k · revenue -74%
  • GA
    GYMNAZIUM A STREDNI PRUMYSOLVA SKOL
    one grant, 2020 · $45k
  • BC
    BUCHEONGDONG COMMUNITY WELFARE CENTER
    one grant, 2020 · $33k
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
05the grantee network

7 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 7 of the 21 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
4/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC: $5,361,683 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC+1 more: $16,489 · PhilanthropyUK ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION: $1,283,117 · OtherUK ONLINE GIVING FOUNDAT…+13 more: $267,839 · Other+13 moreUNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 · InternationalGIVE2ASIA: $26,750 · InternationalTHE HOWARD UNIVERSITY: $25,000 · EducationAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $7,637 · HealthTHE AMERICAN INDIA FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Public Safety & Disaster
Philanthropy$5,378,172Other$1,550,956International$76,750Education$25,000Health$7,637Public Safety & Disaster$5,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC: $5,361,683 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGIVE2ASIA: $26,750 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE HOWARD UNIVERSITY: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVISIT ORG PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATION: $16,489 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $7,637 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE AMERICAN INDIA FOUNDATION: $5,000 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.

  • Who funds AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds GIVE2ASIA ↗
  • Who funds THE HOWARD UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds VISIT ORG PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds THE AMERICAN INDIA FOUNDATION ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization On Semiconductor Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from On Semiconductor Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 On Semiconductor Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to On Semiconductor 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.

    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 21 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on On Semiconductor’s filings →

    More from the funding graph