· Private foundation
Peter G Peterson Foundation
Its FY2025 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 FY2021–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k15 grants · $84k
- $10k–50k31 grants · $834k
- $50k–250k43 grants · $4.5M
- $250k+22 grants · $23M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ELECTION TRUST INITIATIVE LLC | $5,000,000 |
| COMMITTEE FOR A RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL BUDGET | $3,631,455 |
| PETER G PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS | $3,000,000 |
| NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE INC | $2,250,000 |
| NET IMPACT | $1,585,422 |
| BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER INC | $820,000 |
| BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER INC | $779,000 |
| URBAN INSTITUTE | $640,000 |
| PURCHASER BUSINESS GROUP ON HEALTH | $515,000 |
| AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH | $450,000 |
| BROOKINGS INSTITUTION | $450,000 |
| CONCORD COALITION CORP | $450,000 |
| BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER INC | $450,000 |
| MILBANK MEMORIAL FUND | $417,500 |
| WASHINGTON STATE HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY | $398,700 |
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 (FY21–22, $5.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 +1% since the first grant, against -5% for the ones you funded once.
65 repeat relationships — 49 still active in FY2025, 16 since wound down; 23 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.7M 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
- CFCOMMITTEE FOR A RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL BUDGET5× · 2021–2025 · $15M · revenue +84% · 99% of their budget
- NTNUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE INC5× · 2021–2025 · $11M · revenue +59%
- PGPETER G PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS4× · 2021–2025 · $9.5M · revenue +63%
Funded once
- CFCIVICA FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $5.0M · revenue -75%
PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECTgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $250k · revenue +69%- RFResearch Foundation of the City University of New Yorkgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $120k · revenue +29%
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 National Academy of Public Administration is an independent, 501(c)(3) nonprofit, non partisan Organization established in 1967 and chartered by Congress in 1984. See Schedule O
The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…
To provide accurate, objective information and analysis on international strategic issues for legislators, diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business leaders, economists, the military, defense commentators, journalists,…
Help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.
The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
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 mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
Competitive enterprise institute (cei) is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. we believe that consumers are best helped not by government regulation but by being…
See schedule onorc at the university of chicago conducts research and data science on critical societal issues to guide decision-making and the development of programs and public policy. our experts identify relationships and trends, and…
To advance the practice of higher education attorneys for the benefit of the institutions they serve.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Independent Sector and the most unlike its peers is Milbank Memorial Fund. 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 34 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% 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.
95 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. 95 of the 105 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
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 COMMITTEE FOR A RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL BUDGET ↗
- Who funds NET IMPACT ↗
- Who funds NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds PETER G PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS ↗
- Who funds BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds MILBANK MEMORIAL FUND ↗
- Who funds New York City Partnership Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds CIVICA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HENRY J KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE CONCORD COALITION CORP ↗
- Who funds THE URBAN INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds BROWN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Northwestern University ↗
- Who funds THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION ↗
- Who funds VOLCKER ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds University of Chicago ↗
- Who funds BILL HILLARY & CHELSEA CLINTON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE HOWARD UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ↗
- Who funds CATALYST FOR PAYMENT REFORM ↗
- Who funds ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH INC ↗
- Who funds Coalition To Transform Advanced Car ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH INC ↗
- Who funds ISSUE ONE ↗
- Who funds PURCHASER BUSINESS GROUP ON HEALTH ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE STRATEGIES INC ↗
- Who funds The Conference Board Inc ↗
- Who funds Women's Institute for Science Equity Race ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ACTION FORUM INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ↗
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: Laura and John Arnold Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation · California Healthcare Foundation · The Commonwealth Fund · Gates Foundation · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Annie E Casey Foundation Inc · Democracy Fund Inc · Carnegie Corporation of New York · AARP
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 Peter G Peterson 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.
- National Bureau of Economic Research Inc — 48% of income from government
- Digital Medicine Society Inc — 14% of income from government
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- Brandeis University — 9% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Center for Health Care Strategies Inc — 7% of income from government
- Institute for Healthcare Improvement — 0% of income from government
- Williams College — 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 Peter G Peterson Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Peter G Peterson 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.