Skip to content
Renaissance Philanthropy Fund at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Renaissance Philanthropy Fund

Our mission is to fuel a 21st-century renaissance by increasing the ambition of philanthropists, scientists, and innovators.

$14M
Granted FY2025still arriving
32
Grants FY2025still arriving
16
States reached
$1.8M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2024 to 2025.

Education$4.5MScience & Tech$913kEmployment$350kEnvironment$246kCommunity Improvement$178kYouth Development$176kInternational$168kSocial Science$30kOther$0
02FY2025 · 32 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 32 grants below total $6,584,737, the rows itemized in this filing. The $13,664,495 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $7,079,758 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k7 grants · $148k
  • $50k–250k17 grants · $2.2M
  • $250k+8 grants · $4.2M
$122,845
Median grant
16
States reached
$91M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
The Learning Agency$1,757,657
Stanford University$648,970
Human Computation Institute Inc$402,270
The Regents of The University of California$361,500
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill$320,588
American Immigration Council$250,000
Regents of University of California Berkeley$250,000
The University of Texas at Austin$250,000
Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New$249,996
Brown University of Providence$178,450
Rutgers The State University$175,920
New York University$160,000
Cambridge in America$158,000
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES$144,064
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)$142,987
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 (FY25–25, $29k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%The Roots of Progress: $29k → 8%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
MI
NY
MA
OR
NJ
RI
CA
VA
MD
DE
NC
SC
DC
GA
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $7.0M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 6 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$5.9M · 85% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: AI projects & climate work & nutrition

North America (Canada and Mexico)$390k · 6% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: climate work & cardiovascular & ai

East Asia and the Pacific$375k · 5% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Support projects that apply AI to mathematics & general program support

Sub-Saharan Africa$136k · 2% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: To support climate work

South Asia$111k · 2% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: To support projects that apply AI to mathematics

South America$67k · 1% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: To support climate work

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its 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
President and Fellows of Harvard College

Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.

Education
2
Trustees of Boston University

Organization's mission: boston university is an international, comprehensive, private research university, committed to educating students to be reflective, resourceful individuals ready to live, adapt, and lead in an interconnected world.…

—
3
The George Washington University

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…

Education
4
Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Wpi transforms lives, turns knowledge into action to confront global challenges, and revolutionizes stem through distinctive and inclusive education, projects and research. (http://www.wpi.edu/about/mission.html)

—
5
Trustees of Tufts College

Education and Research

Education
6
William Marsh Rice University

As a leading research university with a distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, Rice University aspires to path breaking research, unsurpassed teaching, and contributions to the betterment of our world. It seeks to fulfill this…

Education
7
Institute for Advanced Study - Louis Bamberger & Mrs Felix Fuld Foundation

The institute for advanced study (the institute) is one of the world's leading centers for theoretical research and intellectual inquiry. see schedule o.

Science & Tech
8
Lehigh University

The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…

Education
9
The Mitre Corporation

The primary exempt purpose of the mitre corporation is to conduct scientific research activities in the public interest that ensure the safety and security of the united states, enabling solutions and decisions related to complex…

Science & Tech
10
Technology Policy Institute
International
11
Peter G Peterson Institute for International Economics

The peterson institute for international economics (piie) is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening prosperity and human welfare in the global economy through expert analysis and practical…

Social Science
12
Associated Universities Inc

Associated universities inc (aui) collaborates with the scientific community and research sponsors to plan, build, and operate cutting-edge facilities. we cultivate excellence, deliver value, enhance education, and engage the public.

Science & Tech
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Roots of Progress; the most unlike its peers is Stem for Development. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

24 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. 24 of the 30 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
24/24
Grantees still filing
10/24
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

The Learning Agency: $1,757,657 · OtherThe Learning AgencyREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY: $755,564 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEYUNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL: $320,588 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILLAMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL: $250,000 · OtherAMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCILUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: $250,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXASRUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY: $175,920 · Other+5 more: $287,927 · Other+5 moreTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $648,970 · EducationTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TH…THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $249,996 · EducationTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UN…New York University: $160,000 · EducationNew York UniversityMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $142,987 · EducationMassachusetts Institute of …The Trustees of Princeton University: $122,845 · EducationThe Trustees of Princeton U…Cornell University: $101,200 · EducationCornell UniversitySTEM FOR DEVELOPMENT: $100,000 · EducationSTEM FOR DEVELOPMENTDIGITAL HARBOR FOUNDATION: $60,000 · Education+1 more: $31,322 · EducationHUMAN COMPUTATION INSTITUTE INC: $402,270 · Science & TechHUMAN COM…THE ELEUTHERAI INSTITUTE: $120,500 · Science & TechTHE ELEUT…+1 more: $10,000 · Science & TechBROWN UNIVERSITY: $178,450 · Community ImprovementCENTER ON RURAL INNOVATION INC: $100,000 · Community ImprovementCAMBRIDGE IN AMERICA: $158,000 · InternationalUNLOCK AID COALITION: $10,000 · InternationalGEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $100,541 · HealthFOUNDATION FOR AMERICAN INNOVATION: $25,000 · HealthTHE ENERGY FOR GROWTH HUB INC: $75,000 · Environment
Other$3,797,656Education$1,617,320Science & Tech$532,770Community Improvement$278,450International$168,000Health$125,541Environment$75,000

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 budgetTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $249,996 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBROWN UNIVERSITY: $178,450 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCAMBRIDGE IN AMERICA: $158,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $142,987 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetThe Trustees of Princeton University: $122,845 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCornell University: $101,200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $100,541 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSTEM FOR DEVELOPMENT: $100,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetSouth Carolina Research Foundation: $95,727 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetDIGITAL HARBOR FOUNDATION: $60,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $31,322 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGOOD SCIENCE PROJECT: $30,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetFoundation for Innovation in Healthy Food: $12,500 over 1y, 27% 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.

Digital Harbor Founda…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Digital Harbor FoundationMD13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Digital Harbor Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Renaissance Philanthropy Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Renaissance Philanthropy Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 35%
  • Center On Rural Innovation Inc: 37% of income from government
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 35% of income from government
  • The Trustees of Princeton University: 11% of income from government
  • Digital Harbor Foundation: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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.
04Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Renaissance Philanthropy Fund?

Find your warmest path to Renaissance Philanthropy Fund 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 30 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Renaissance Philanthropy’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