· Public charity
Contina Impact
The organization's mission is to serve as the fiscal sponsor for the charitable donations and philanthropic disbursements of individuals, foundation, and other entities, to provide technical assistance to youth-serving and nonprofit organizations and to coordinate education and other policy efforts.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2022–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 23 grants below total $8,452,546 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $8,952,546 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $500,000 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
- $10k–50k4 grants · $68k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $672k
- $250k+13 grants · $7.7M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SUPPORT SERVICES NETWORK | $1,250,000 |
| DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER INSTITUTE | $1,250,000 |
| MORE IN COMMON | $1,106,679 |
| DEMOCRACY SECURITY PROJECT | $750,000 |
| SD FOUNDATION | $636,000 |
| NEO PHILANTHROPY | $570,000 |
| GLOBAL IMPACT-PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE | $500,000 |
| SECURE FAMILIES FOUNDATION | $350,000 |
| REDEEMING BABEL | $300,000 |
| ISSUE ONE | $250,000 |
| ACCESS NOW | $250,000 |
| INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR NOT-FORPROFIT LAW (ICNL) | $250,000 |
| INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC DIALOGUE US | $250,000 |
| HARMONY LABS INC | $180,000 |
| EQUIS INSTITUTE | $150,000 |
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 (FY22–24, $2.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% 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.
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 0% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 16 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, 38% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4.8M 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
- MIMORE IN COMMON INC3× · 2022–2024 · $2.3M · revenue -6% · 32% of their budget
- DDDEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER INSTITUTE2× · 2023–2024 · $1.6M · revenue +142%
NEO Philanthropy Inc2× · 2023–2024 · $675k · revenue +1%
Funded once
- SSSUPPORT SERVICES NETWORKone grant, 2024 · $1.3M
- DSDEMOCRACY SECURITY PROJECT ACTION FUNDone grant, 2024 · $750k · 58% of their budget
- SFSD Foundationone grant, 2024 · $636k · revenue 0%
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.
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,…
The democracy integrity project (tdip) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit that provides research on matters of public interest to government entities, media, and other nonprofits to educate the public on matters such as foreign election interference,…
Secure Democracy USA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to build stronger elections, state by state.
Advocating for public policies that advance democratic values in the digital age.
Iri advances freedom and democracy worldwide by developing political parties, civic institutions, open elections, democratic governance and the rule of law.
To offer independent and confidential advice and practical assistance in diplomatic strategy and technique to governments, political groups, international organizations and ngos on diplomatic process and decision-making.
Silicon Valley Defense Group convenes experts in technology, investment, and government for discussions on how to better collaborate between the various groups. The comments and topics are then published on our website to help educate and…
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.
Reduce global poverty and improve lives through innovative economic research that drives better policy and practice by the world's top decision makers. we focus on the intersection of developing countries and the governments, institutions…
Ndi strives for a world where people have a say in how they're governed and where leaders are accountable totheir people - creating a more stable, peaceful and prosperous world for everyone.
State policy network's (spn) mission is to catalyze thriving, durable freedom movements in every state, anchored with high-performing, independent think tanks.
Ibp works with civil society, governments, international institutions and the private sector to bring about a world in which empowered citizens participate in open, inclusive public budgeting processes to shape policies and practices that…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is States United Democracy Center Inc and the most unlike its peers is Good Faith Network Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 15 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 14% of your grantees by number, and just 17% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
22 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. 22 of the 23 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 MORE IN COMMON INC ↗
- Who funds DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds DEMOCRACY SECURITY PROJECT ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
- Who funds SD Foundation ↗
- Who funds Global Impact ↗
- Who funds SECURE FAMILIES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Good Faith Network Inc ↗
- Who funds ISSUE ONE ↗
- Who funds ACCESS NOW ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC DIALOGUE-US ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR NOT-FOR-PROFIT LAW INC ↗
- Who funds HARMONY LABS INC ↗
- Who funds EQUIS INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE ↗
- Who funds MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds STATES UNITED DEMOCRACY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds FUND FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT ↗
- Who funds NGO-Information Sharing and Analysis Center ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds HEALTHY DEMOCRACY FUND ↗
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: New Venture Fund · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Foundation to Promote Open Society · Skoll Fund · The Klarman Family Foundation · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Ford Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Democracy 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 Contina Impact 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.
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 Contina Impact?
Find your warmest path to Contina Impact 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.