· Private foundation
S&P Global Foundation Fka the McGraw-Hill Research Foundation
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.
Read this first · the figures below need context
75% of S&P Global Foundation Fka the McGraw-Hill Research 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 3 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2022, the last year S&P Global Foundation Fka the McGraw-Hill Research Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 17 organizations, $11M. 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
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 48% of S&P GLOBAL FOUNDATION FKA THE MCGRAW-HILL RESEARCH FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2022
- $10k–50k4 grants · $56k
- $50k–250k23 grants · $2.9M
- $250k+4 grants · $8.4M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE BLACKBAUD GIVING FUND | $6,956,110 |
| UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF | $500,000 |
| MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERS USA | $500,000 |
| AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION | $415,971 |
| LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENCE AND EDUCATION FUND | $200,000 |
| AAPI CIVIC ENGAGEMENT FUND - NEO PHILANTHROPY INC | $200,000 |
| HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION | $200,000 |
| LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW | $200,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $200,000 |
| ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE | $200,000 |
| UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION | $150,000 |
| WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN | $150,000 |
| PROJECT HOPE | $150,000 |
| UNITED STATES ASSOCIATION FOR UNHCRTHE UN REFUGEE AGENCY | $150,000 |
| INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE | $150,000 |
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.
Your US giving — 88% of grant dollars ($69M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 12% that went abroad ($9.6M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $1.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 96% of those 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.
Which US states your grants reach
Beyond the US — 12% of all-years giving ($9.6M)
24 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 39% of S&P Global Foundation Fka the McGraw-Hill Research 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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +49% since the first grant, against +34% for the ones you funded once.
733 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2022, 719 since wound down; 24 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call). Read against FY2022, 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, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $216k 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
UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF7× · 2017–2024 · $1.7M · revenue +76%
DIRECT RELIEF3× · 2020–2023 · $1.3M · revenue +20%
PROJECT HOPE - THE PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE HEALTH FOUNDATION INC5× · 2020–2025 · $850k · revenue +53%
Funded once
- TBTHE BLACKBAUD GIVING FUND DONOR ADVISED FUNDone grant, 2020 · $4.9M
- UWUNITED WAY WORLDWIDE DONOR ADVISED FUNDone grant, 2020 · $3.7M
- UDUGA DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS-MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERESone grant, 2021 · $500k
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.
To educate students to be ethical and socially responsible leaders in a global community.
The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…
The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.
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.
Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
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,…
Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.
Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.
Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.
Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.
New york school of interior design provides the most innovative, immersive, and transformative interior design education in the world, demonstrating the impact of professionally designed interiors on the health, happiness, and well-being…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Make-a-Wish Foundation of America and the most unlike its peers is Internet Archive. 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 38 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.9% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
1483 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. 1483 of the 1,944 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 UNITED WAY WORLDWIDE ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF ↗
- Who funds DIRECT RELIEF ↗
- Who funds PROJECT HOPE - THE PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE HEALTH FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds GIVE2ASIA ↗
- Who funds MYRIAD USA INC ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds Feeding America ↗
- Who funds National Domestic Workers Alliance Inc ↗
- Who funds Freefrom ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds UPWARDLY GLOBAL ↗
- Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law ↗
- Who funds HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS ↗
- Who funds US Chamber of Commerce Foundation ↗
- Who funds UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC ↗
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: Charlottesville Area Community Foundation · Perry Foundation Inc · The Charles Fund Inc · The J & E Berkley Foundation · Oakwood Foundation Charitable Trust · Manning Family Foundation · American Express Foundation · The Genan Foundation · The Oak Hill Fund · Caplin Foundation · The Hyde and Watson Foundation · Cassiopeia Foundation Inc
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 S&P Global Foundation Fka the McGraw-Hill Research 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.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Seton Hall University — 1% of income from government
- Americares Foundation Inc — 0% of income from government
- Wounded Warrior Project Inc — 0% of income from government
- Rutgers University Foundation — 0% 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.