· Public charity
Reset Tech
To protect the public against digital threats to security, safety, and, fundamental rights.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2023–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 15 grants below total $2,355,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $4,206,238 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,851,238 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–50k2 grants · $55k
- $50k–250k10 grants · $935k
- $250k+3 grants · $1.4M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PROTEGO PRESS DBA TECH POLICY PRESS | $550,000 |
| INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC DIALOGUE-US | $515,000 |
| CAMPAIGN FOR ACCOUNTABILITY INC | $300,000 |
| SUMOFUS | $150,000 |
| ADVANCE DEMOCRACY | $125,000 |
| CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE | $100,000 |
| ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENT | $100,000 |
| ALL VOTING IS LOCAL | $100,000 |
| COMMON CAUSE EDUCATION FUND | $100,000 |
| TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY | $100,000 |
| BERKELEY EXISTENTIAL RISK INITIATIV | $60,000 |
| CORNELL UNIVERSITY | $50,000 |
| MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECH | $50,000 |
| NEW VENTURE FUND | $30,000 |
| ALLIANCE TO COUNTER CRIME ONLINE | $25,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY23–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 92% of your 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.
Grants abroad, by region — $1.9M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 4 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: SUPPORT DIGITAL POLI · SUPPORT COMPLIANCE R · DEVELOP POLICY PROPO
Stated purpose: CORE FUNDING ORGANIS
Stated purpose: START-UP FUNDING · FUNDING EVENTS
Stated purpose: FUNDING DIGITAL CONT
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. 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.
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.
Advocating for public policies that advance democratic values in the digital age.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
The american enterprise institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening free enterprise. aei pursues these ideals through independent thinking and the…
Orcid provides an identifier for individuals to use with their name as they engage in research, scholarship, and innovation activities. we provide open tools that enable transparent and trustworthy connections between researchers, their…
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
The common application is a not-for-profit membership organization of over 1,100 colleges and universities across the globe committed to access, equity, and integrity in the college admission process. every year, over 1.5 million students…
The university of virginia investment management company (uvimco) is organized to invest funds on behalf of the rector and visitors of the university of virginia (the university or uva) and university-associated organizations (uaos).
Preservation of civil liberties through litigation and public education.
Accountable.us is a watchdog organization that shines a light on the corrupting influence of powerful corporations and special interests on policymaking. we use investigative research to expose improprieties and communicate our findings to…
A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.
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.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Protego Press and the most unlike its peers is Berkeley Existential Risk Initiative. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
17 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.
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 PROTEGO PRESS ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC DIALOGUE-US ↗
- Who funds MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA ↗
- Who funds CAMPAIGN FOR ACCOUNTABILITY INC ↗
- Who funds EKO AND AFFILIATE ↗
- Who funds UltraViolet Education Fund ↗
- Who funds ADVANCE DEMOCRACY INC ↗
- Who funds COMMON CAUSE EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds ALL VOTING IS LOCAL ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE INC ↗
- Who funds ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER ↗
- Who funds The Trustees of Princeton University ↗
- Who funds BERKELEY EXISTENTIAL RISK INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds Cornell University ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE TO COUNTER CRIME ONLINE ↗
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 · Foundation to Promote Open Society · The Ford Foundation · Tides Foundation · Hopewell Fund · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Reset Tech 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.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 11% of income from government
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 Reset Tech?
Find your warmest path to Reset Tech 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.