· Private foundation
Pure Good Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
Read this first · the figures below need context
63% of Pure Good Foundation’s FY2025 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. FY2025 names 1 organization directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2019, the last year Pure Good Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 10 organizations, $549k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2019
- Under $10k10 grants · $38k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $42k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $469k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF HAWAII | $150,000 |
| TEAM4TECH FOUNDATION | $95,000 |
| KABOOM INC | $91,550 |
| AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC | $82,250 |
| KIDSPIRE | $50,000 |
| IRISH ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC | $16,802 |
| MOUNTAIN VIEW WHISMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT | $14,359 |
| SAN FRANCISCO AIDS FOUNDATION | $10,837 |
| TURNINGWHEELS FOR KIDS CO VMC FOUNDATION | $8,875 |
| HUNTING WITH HEROES | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| DOWN SYNDROME CONNECTION OF THE BAY AREA | $5,000 |
| PHILANTHROPIC VENTURES FOUNDATION | $4,000 |
| MIKE'S BIKES FOUNDATION | $2,750 |
| IT4CC | $2,500 |
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 US giving — 83% of grant dollars ($7.8M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 17% that went abroad ($1.6M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $125k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 40% 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
Beyond the US — 17% of all-years giving ($1.6M)
9 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 77% of Pure Good Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 7% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 5% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
17 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2019, 7 since wound down; 19 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call). Read against FY2019, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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, 42% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $164k 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
- TFTEAM4TECH FOUNDATION4× · 2017–2020 · $455k · revenue +358%
- KKIDSPIRE2× · 2018–2019 · $75k · revenue +2%
- PHProject Helping2× · 2021–2024 · $27k · revenue +39%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2018 · $54k
- PTPrince's Trustone grant, 2017 · $31k
- AHAIM HIGHgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +103%
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.
Endeavor is leading the high-impact entrepreneurship movement around the world.
Philanthropic collaborative focused on improving lives through just & inclusive systems change.
Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…
Technoserve's mission is to fight poverty by helping people build regenerative farms, businesses, and markets that increase incomes.
Ai4all's mission is to ensure that the next generation of ai leaders reflects humanity. ai4all is transforming the pipeline of ai practitioners who will shape ai for the benefit of humanity.
Activate empowers scientists to reinvent the world by bringing their research to market. activate partners with u.s. based funders, research institutions, and other pillars of the hard technology community to help entrepreneurial…
Techsoup's mission is to build a dynamic bridge that leverages technology to enable connections and innovative solutions for a more equitable planet.
See attached statementprimary missionfuture 500 builds trust between corporations, advocates, investors, and philanthropists to advance business as a force for good. we are experts in stakeholder engagement with over 25 years of experience…
A social impact non-profit, space for humanity serves purpose-driven leaders through a sponsored spaceflight experience to create a profound shift in perspective, so that each citizen astronaut returns with a grander perspective to address…
Our mission is to break down barriers to als research to find effective treatments. by uniting academia, the pharma and biotech industry, government, venture capital, related nonprofits, and the als community, we aim to overcome the…
Water.org's goal is to bring safe water and sanitation to the world through access to small, affordable loans.
Our mission is to build a movement of global citizens whose actions will help achieve our vision of a world without extreme poverty.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Online Giving Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Please Foundation. 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 24 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 27% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 17% 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.
36 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. 36 of the 63 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 AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds TEAM4TECH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds KABOOM INC ↗
- Who funds REWRITING THE CODE INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF HAWAII ↗
- Who funds GLOBALGIVING FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds KIDSPIRE ↗
- Who funds THE ASTRAEA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds VISIT ORG PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Project Helping ↗
- Who funds URBAN GREEN LAB ↗
- Who funds AIM HIGH ↗
- Who funds THE MICHAEL PHELPS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO AIDS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds The Please Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE MIKES BIKES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SPARK PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds LIFEMOVES ↗
- Who funds Wine to Water ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE ORPHANS D/B/A NPH-USA ↗
- Who funds DOWN SYNDROME CONNECTION OF THE BAY AREA ↗
- Who funds Education Outside ↗
- Who funds RESOURCE AREA FOR TEACHING ↗
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: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Atkinson Foundation · LPL Financial Foundation Inc · Tides Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · AbbVie Foundation · Verizon Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · American Endowment Foundation
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 Pure Good 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.
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 Pure Good Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Pure Good 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.