· Public charity
Sae International
To advance mobility knowledge and solutions for the benefit of humanity.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 33 grants below total $352,475 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $690,612 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $338,137 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
- Under $10k19 grants · $136k
- $10k–50k14 grants · $216k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY | $25,000 |
| GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY | $20,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA | $18,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS | $17,500 |
| PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY | $17,250 |
| UNIVERSITY OF IOWA | $15,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE | $15,000 |
| AUBURN UNIVERSITY | $15,000 |
| PURDUE UNIVERSITY | $13,125 |
| CORNELL UNIVERSITY | $13,000 |
| SOUTH DAKOTA SCHOOL OF MINES & TECH | $12,500 |
| SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY | $12,500 |
| UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA | $11,500 |
| UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN | $11,000 |
| CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY | $9,750 |
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 84% 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
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.
39 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2024, 23 since wound down; 14 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
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 FY2024, 57% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $136k went to new ones.
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
DUKE UNIVERSITY3× · 2020–2022 · $69k · revenue +49%- KUKettering University5× · 2017–2022 · $66k · revenue +42%
Rochester Institute of Technology8× · 2017–2024 · $62k · revenue +61%
Funded once
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTEone grant, 2023 · $21k · revenue +14%
The Trustees of Princeton Universitygraduatedone grant, 2020 · $19k · revenue +51%- RVRECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIAone grant, 2023 · $19k
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.
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…
Dartmouth College educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership, through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge.
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.
See Form 990, Part I, Line 1, Description of Organization Mission.
Education and Research
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…
As the national university of the catholic church in the united states, founded and sponsored by the bishops of the country with the approval of the holy see, the catholic university of america is committed to being a comprehensive…
The mission of the university is to educate leaders for a global society who are strong in character and judgment, confident in their identity and vocation, and committed to service and justice.
Western new england university, a comprehensive private institution with a tradition of excellence in teaching and scholarship and a commitment to service, awards undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees in various departments from…
Delaware state university is a public, comprehensive, 1890 land-grant institution that offers access and opportunity to diverse populations from delaware, the nation, and the world. (continued on schedule o.)building on its heritage as a…
At Roger Williams University, students are prepared to be thinkers and doers ready to solve challenging problems with innovative solutions. RWU offers robust offerings of undergraduate, graduate and professional programs across eight…
Provides innovative education in a dynamic urban setting. dedicated to academic excellence and community engagement,we prepare students of diverse backgrounds with the knowledge, skill,and experience to lead meaningful lives as informed…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of the Pacific and the most unlike its peers is Rocky Mountain Institute. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 71 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
44 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. 44 of the 97 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 DUKE UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Kettering University ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds Rochester Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds Michigan Tech Fund ↗
- Who funds CAL POLY CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Cornell University ↗
- Who funds The George Washington University ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE ↗
- Who funds GANNON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds The Trustees of Princeton University ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY STANISLAUS AUXILIARY AND BUSINESS SERVICES ↗
- Who funds OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY ↗
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: American Chemical Society · Folds of Honor Foundation · National Collegiate Athletic Association · Tulsa Community Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · Americaview · National Collegiate Inventors & Innovators Alliance Inc · Columbus Foundation · American Heart Association Inc · Hispanic Scholarship Fund · Howard Hughes Medical Institute · University of Delaware
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 Sae International 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 26% of income from government
- University of Delaware — 25% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 12% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 11% of income from government
- Worcester Polytechnic Institute — 6% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 5% 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.