Skip to content

· Private foundation

Parsemus Foundation

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.

$86k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$65k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Education$279kHealth$234kAnimals$72kCivil Rights$22kScience & Tech$8kSocial Science$8kEnvironment$2k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $9k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $12k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $65k
$3,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$2.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Hormonally$65,385
Novo School of Science$12,000
Amici Cannis USA$3,000
University of Sarajevo Veterinary S$3,000
Male Contraception Initiative$2,000
University of Minnesota Foundation$1,000
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.

US giving: 83% of grant dollars ($518k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 17% that went abroad ($107k) is mapped below.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%University of Minnesota Foundation: $257k → 11%Rudolf Steiner Foundation: $8k → 10%Dr Susan Love Foundation: $100 → 14%Inter Consortium for Male Contracep: $2k → 8%Spay First: $1k → 13%Alliance for Contraception Cats Dog: $5k → 14%Alliance for Contraception Cats Dog: $10k → 12%Male Contraception Initiative: $2k → 11%Amici Cannis USA: $10k → 11%LSU Health Foundation: $100k → 23%Johns Hopkins University CAAT: $8k → 19%University of Minnesota Foundation: $3k → 11%Hormonally: $65k → 10%Spay First: $1k → 13%Alliance for Contraception Cats Dog: $5k → 12%Male Contraception Initiative: $2k → 11%Amici Cannis USA: $3k → 11%Johns Hopkins University CAAT: $4k → 19%University of Minnesota Foundation: $1k → 11%Alliance for Contraception Cats Dog: $5k → 12%Male Contraception Initiative: $2k → 11%Amici Cannis USA: $3k → 11%Johns Hopkins University CAAT: $3k → 19%Alliance for Contraception Cats Dog: $5k → 12%Male Contraception Initiative: $1k → 11%Johns Hopkins University CAAT: $3k → 19%Johns Hopkins University CAAT: $3k → 19%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

MN
MI
OR
CA
CO
MD
NC
OK
LA

Beyond the US: 17% of all-years giving ($107k)

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

grant dollars sentlessmore
Italy$37k · 3 grants
Canada$30k · 2 grants
Argentina$15k · 1 grant
Portugal$12k · 1 grant
Denmark$6k · 1 grant
Switzerland$2k · 1 grant
France$2k · 1 grant
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$412k · 9 repeat orgs$205k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +30% since the first grant, against -28% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
6

Total granted

$412k
$125k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+30%
-28%

Still filing today

56%
17%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 7% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $80k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsEducationHealthCivil RightsOther
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
    UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION
    3× · 2020–2025 · $261k · revenue +137%
  • AF
    Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs
    5× · 2018–2023 · $30k · revenue +30%
  • AC
    AMICI CANNIS
    3× · 2018–2025 · $16k · revenue +625%

Funded once

  • LH
    LSU HEALTH FOUNDATION NEW ORLEANS
    one grant, 2020 · $100k · revenue -28%
  • AC
    Assoc Civil Por El Derecho A Decidi
    one grant, 2019 · $15k
  • UO
    University of Southern Denmark
    one grant, 2023 · $6k
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 19 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)
1
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

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION: $261,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATIONHormonally: $65,385 · OtherHormonallyIndividual grant recipient: $37,335 · OtherIndividual grant recipientUniversity of Saskatchewan: $30,000 · OtherUniversity of SaskatchewanJohns Hopkins University CAAT: $21,000 · OtherJohns Hopkins University CAATAssoc Civil Por El Derecho A Decidi: $15,000 · OtherAssoc Civil Por El Derecho A DecidiNovo School of Science: $12,000 · OtherNovo School of ScienceIndividual grant recipient: $7,500 · Other+5 more: $12,522 · Other+5 moreLSU HEALTH FOUNDATION NEW ORLEANS: $100,000 · HealthLSU HEALTH FOUNDAT…Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs: $30,000 · AnimalsAMICI CANNIS: $15,868 · AnimalsSPAY FIRST INC: $2,200 · AnimalsRSF SOCIAL FINANCE INC: $7,500 · Social ScienceMALE CONTRACEPTIVE INITIATIVE: $7,000 · Civil Rights
Education$261,000Other$200,742Health$100,000Animals$48,068Social Science$7,500Civil Rights$7,000

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 budgetUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION: $261,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetLSU HEALTH FOUNDATION NEW ORLEANS: $100,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetAlliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs: $30,000 over 5y, 4.5% of budgetAMICI CANNIS: $15,868 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetRSF SOCIAL FINANCE INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMALE CONTRACEPTIVE INITIATIVE: $7,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetSPAY FIRST INC: $2,200 over 2y, 0.6% 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 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds LSU HEALTH FOUNDATION NEW ORLEANS ↗
  • Who funds Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs ↗
  • Who funds AMICI CANNIS ↗
  • Who funds RSF SOCIAL FINANCE INC ↗
  • Who funds MALE CONTRACEPTIVE INITIATIVE ↗
  • Who funds SPAY FIRST INC ↗

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.

National Philanthropic TrustPA9.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Parsemus Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Parsemus 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%25%50%75%100%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
    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 Parsemus Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Parsemus 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 19 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 Parsemus’ filings →

    More from the funding graph