Skip to content

· Private foundation

Pure Good Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$549k
Granted FY2019
18
Grants FY2019
7
States reached
$150k
Largest

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

7
’17
14
’18
10
’19
7
’20
4
’21
2
’22
4
’23
7
’24
1
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Philanthropy$7.3MEducation$840kRecreation & Sports$423kYouth Development$182kHuman Services$105kInternational$99kHealth$66kEnvironment$37kOther$0
02FY2019 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2019

  • Under $10k10 grants · $38k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $42k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $469k
$8,875
Median grant
7
States reached
$18M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 ($7.8M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 17% that went abroad ($1.6M) is mapped below.

show:

Its 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. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%MICHAEL PHELPS FOUNDATION: $25k → 11%KIDSPIRE: $50k → 8%KIDSPIRE: $25k → 8%Aim High: $25k → 10%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

VT
MN
IL
NY
OR
WY
NJ
CA
UT
CO
MD
DE
AZ
TN
NC
DC
HI
LA
GA
FL

Beyond the US: 17% of all-years giving ($1.6M)

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

grant dollars sentlessmore
United Kingdom$1.3M · 10 grants
Australia$150k · 4 grants
Czechia$65k · 1 grant
Canada$9k · 3 grants
South Africa$5k · 1 grant
Netherlands$5k · 1 grant
Singapore$4k · 1 grant
Hong Kong$3k · 1 grant
Ireland$579 · 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.
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 77% of Pure Good Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 7% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 5%.

Pure Good Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 19% directed abroad (not shown)
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.

74%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.6M · 17 repeat orgs$925k to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
24

Total granted

$2.6M
$197k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+13%
+62%

Still filing today

71%
42%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 42% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $164k 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
EducationEnvironmentPhilanthropyHuman ServicesInternationalHealthOther
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

  • TF
    TEAM4TECH FOUNDATION
    4× · 2017–2020 · $455k · revenue +358%
  • K
    KIDSPIRE
    2× · 2018–2019 · $75k · revenue +2%
  • PH
    Project Helping
    2× · 2021–2024 · $27k · revenue +39%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $54k
  • PT
    Prince's Trust
    one grant, 2017 · $31k
  • AH
    AIM HIGHgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +103%
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
Endeavor Global Inc (F/K/a the Endeavor Initiative Inc)

Endeavor is leading the high-impact entrepreneurship movement around the world.

International
2
Co-Impact Philanthropic Funds Inc

Philanthropic collaborative focused on improving lives through just & inclusive systems change.

Philanthropy
3
Project Drawdown

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;…

Education
4
Technoserve Inc

Technoserve's mission is to fight poverty by helping people build regenerative farms, businesses, and markets that increase incomes.

International
5
AI4ALL

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.

Youth Development
6
Activate Global Inc

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…

Environment
7
Techsoup Global

Techsoup's mission is to build a dynamic bridge that leverages technology to enable connections and innovative solutions for a more equitable planet.

—
8
Future 500

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…

—
9
Space for Humanity

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…

Science & Tech
10
Target Als Foundation Inc

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…

Education
11
Waterorg

Water.org's goal is to bring safe water and sanitation to the world through access to small, affordable loans.

International
12
Global Poverty Project Inc

Our mission is to build a movement of global citizens whose actions will help achieve our vision of a world without extreme poverty.

Social Science
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Online Giving Foundation Inc; 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.
05the grantee network

36 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
35/36
Grantees still filing
24/36
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC: $5,803,964 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC+5 more: $42,573 · PhilanthropyTHE UK ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC: $1,241,298 · OtherTHE UK ONLINE GIVING FOUN…BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF HAWAII: $150,000 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF HAWA…AUSTRALIAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC: $149,979 · OtherAUSTRALIAN ONLINE GIVING …Individual grant recipient: $96,014 · Other+37 more: $460,257 · Other+37 moreTEAM4TECH FOUNDATION: $454,500 · EducationTEAM4TECH…REWRITING THE CODE INC: $300,000 · EducationREWRITING…+2 more: $6,000 · EducationKABOOM INC: $392,250 · Recreation & SportsKIDSPIRE: $75,000 · Human ServicesAIM HIGH: $25,000 · Human ServicesTHE MICHAEL PHELPS FOUNDATION: $25,000 · Human Services+1 more: $2,500 · Human ServicesGLOBALGIVING FOUNDATION INC: $77,674 · InternationalTHE MIKES BIKES FOUNDATION: $11,250 · InternationalFRIENDS OF THE ORPHANS D/B/A NPH-USA: $5,000 · InternationalURBAN GREEN LAB: $25,000 · EnvironmentWine to Water: $5,790 · EnvironmentNEIGHBORHOOD FOREST INC: $5,000 · EnvironmentThe Silicon Valley Leadership Group Foundation: $2,133 · Environment
Philanthropy$5,846,537Other$2,097,548Education$760,500Recreation & Sports$392,250Human Services$127,500International$93,924Environment$37,923

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 budgetAMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC: $5,803,964 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetTEAM4TECH FOUNDATION: $454,500 over 4y, 14% of budgetKABOOM INC: $392,250 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetREWRITING THE CODE INC: $300,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF HAWAII: $150,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetGLOBALGIVING FOUNDATION INC: $77,674 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetKIDSPIRE: $75,000 over 2y, 5.5% of budgetTHE ASTRAEA FOUNDATION INC: $31,798 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetVISIT ORG PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATION: $31,563 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetProject Helping: $26,583 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetURBAN GREEN LAB: $25,000 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetTHE MICHAEL PHELPS FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetSAN FRANCISCO AIDS FOUNDATION: $21,037 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetThe Please Foundation: $17,711 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetTHE MIKES BIKES FOUNDATION: $11,250 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetSPARK PROGRAM INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetLIFEMOVES: $7,741 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWine to Water: $5,790 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEducation Outside: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDOWN SYNDROME CONNECTION OF THE BAY AREA: $5,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetNEIGHBORHOOD FOREST INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE ORPHANS D/B/A NPH-USA: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRESOURCE AREA FOR TEACHING: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetOUR FAMILY COALITION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetPHILANTHROPIC VENTURES FOUNDATION: $4,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHANKSGIVING HEROES SLC: $3,100 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetGUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNMDP FOUNDATION: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF METRO DENVER INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetThe Silicon Valley Leadership Group Foundation: $2,133 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetONE TREE PLANTED INC: $1,410 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetRAVENSWOOD EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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 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 BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA ↗
  • Who funds Education Outside ↗
  • Who funds DOWN SYNDROME CONNECTION OF THE BAY AREA ↗
  • Who funds HUNTING WITH HEROES 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.

Silicon Valley Community FoundationCA19× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Good Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pure Good Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    4get no government money at all
    9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 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.

    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 63 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Pure Good’s filings →

    More from the funding graph