Skip to content
Pure Edge Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Pure Edge Inc

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.

$100k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Education$1.1MEmployment$1.0MHealth$184kPhilanthropy$175kSocial Science$175kEnvironment$100kFood & Nutrition$85kCommunity Improvement$40kOther$0
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$100,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$450k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Earthrace Conservation Organization Inc$100,000
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.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY18–18, $500) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%YOGA VILLAGE: $500 → 7%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

IL
NY
MA
IN
CT
CA
CO
VA
TN
NC
DC
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.
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 39% of Pure Edge Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Pure Edge Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
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.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.9M · 6 repeat orgs$805k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
30

Total granted

$1.9M
$705k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-23%
-22%

Still filing today

67%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationHealthYouth DevelopmentHuman ServicesSocial ScienceCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    4× · 2020–2023 · $1.0M
  • LP
    Learning Policy Institute
    2× · 2019–2021 · $400k · revenue -45%
  • HC
    HOPE CHICAGO INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $200k · revenue -27%

Funded once

  • NW
    NAMI WESTSIDE LAgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $150k · revenue +73%
  • YC
    Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence
    one grant, 2020 · $100k
  • SU
    Stanford University - Fish & Ships
    one grant, 2021 · $85k
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

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
The Thinking Project Institute

The thinking project's mission is to bring inquiry to every student, everywhere. rooted in the process of inquiry-based stress reduction (ibsr), we're exploring how this work-and related, congruent practices-can meaningfully support both…

Education
2
National Institute for Excellence in Teaching

Building educator excellence to give all students the opportunity for success.

Education
3
Creative Minds International Public Charter School

The mission of the charter school is to cultivate within all of our students the mindset, skills, creativity, and commitment to equity essential in becoming globally aware and independently minded citizens.

Education
4
Creative Lives Inc

Creative lives helps children prepare for their future and thrive in body, mind, and spirit through a holistic approach to teaching and parenting. we advance a framework for wise education, developed by educator ellen tadd, through…

Education
5
Future Problem Solving Program International Inc

Future problem solving proudly celebrates more than 50 years of placing close to a million young people at the core of a dynamic, purposeful learning experience. each year k-12 students from around the world participate in a variety of…

—
6
Big Thought

The mission of Big Thought is to make imagination a part of everyday learning. We bring relentless optimism, innovation, and imagination to the biggest problem facing education today: the opportunity gap.

Arts & Culture
7
Strategic Education Research Partnership Institute

The strategic education research partnership generates innovative, scalable solutions to our schools' most pressing problems through sustained collaborations among researchers, practitioners, and designers. we work to increase equity,…

Science & Tech
8
Acknowledge Alliance

Acknowledge alliance is dedicated to promoting lifelong resilience in children and youth, and strengthening the caring capacity of the adults who influence their lives.

Health
9
Neural Education

We knock down the barriers of stress, bias and emotional reactivity with powerful, practical and proven neural-informed learning practices so that all students can learn.

Education
10
Ingenuity Prep

Ingenuity prep public charter school was formed to prepare students to succeed in college and beyond as impactful civiic leaders.

Education
11
Yogi Squad

Stress and anxiety are rising among students, impacting their well-being and ability to learn. Yogi Squad addresses this by equipping kids with mindfulness, movement, and literacy-inspired tools to manage stress, build resilience, and…

Youth Development
12
Center for Wellness and Achievement

The mission of CWAE is to promote human development and reduce societal problems by strengthening the underlying neurophysiology of learning and behavior.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Aspen Institute Inc; the most unlike its peers is Yoga Village. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

21 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. 21 of the 39 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/21
Grantees still filing
9/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $1,025,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientHOPE CHICAGO INC: $200,000 · OtherHOPE CHICAGO INCEARTHRACE CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION INC: $100,000 · OtherEARTHRACE CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION INCYale Center for Emotional Intelligence: $100,000 · OtherYale Center for Emotional IntelligenceStanford University - Fish & Ships: $85,000 · Other+22 more: $275,849 · Other+22 moreLearning Policy Institute: $400,000 · EducationLearning Policy Insti…THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $95,000 · EducationTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES…University of Illinois Foundation: $60,000 · EducationUniversity of Illinoi…+2 more: $5,000 · EducationTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $175,000 · Social ScienceROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC: $175,000 · PhilanthropyNAMI WESTSIDE LA: $150,000 · HealthFOUNDATION FOR A MINDFUL SOCIETY INC: $9,000 · HealthPartnership for Children & Youth: $40,000 · Community ImprovementCOLLABORATIVE FOR ACADEMIC SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING: $34,000 · Youth DevelopmentTHREE AND A HALF ACRES YOGA FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Youth Development
Other$1,785,849Education$560,000Social Science$175,000Philanthropy$175,000Health$159,000Community Improvement$40,000Youth Development$39,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLearning Policy Institute: $400,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetHOPE CHICAGO INC: $200,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $175,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC: $175,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNAMI WESTSIDE LA: $150,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $95,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Illinois Foundation: $60,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPartnership for Children & Youth: $40,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetCOLLABORATIVE FOR ACADEMIC SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING: $34,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR A MINDFUL SOCIETY INC: $9,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetINDY YOGA MOVEMENT: $5,250 over 1y, 7.1% of budgetTHREE AND A HALF ACRES YOGA FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 8.3% of budgetYOKID STRETCH YOUR LIMITS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetCREATE INC DOROTHY MORELLI: $2,500 over 1y, 1.5% 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.

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.

Silicon Valley Commun…Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Silicon Valley Community FoundationCA11.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Pure Edge Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pure Edge Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Trustees of Boston University: 12% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
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.

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 39 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.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2024, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Pure Edge’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home