Skip to content
Stefan & Tanya Gleason Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Stefan & Tanya Gleason Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$16k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0191% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Education$102kHealth$80kScience & Tech$73kEmployment$45kCommunity Improvement$36kPublic Safety & Disaster$33kArts & Culture$25kCivil Rights$18kOther$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$5,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$200k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$5,000
ROLEMODELS UNIV THE SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIP DEV & FINANCIAL INTELLI$5,000
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS RESEARCH$5,000
Individual grant recipient$587
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 72% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%IDAHO FREEDOM FOUNDATION: $10k → 8%CARON TREATMENT CENTERS: $15k → 11%FRIENDS OF RUWENZORI: $9k → 9%LARRY GARB: $5k → 14%PEOPLE UNITED FOR PRIVACY FOUNDATION: $5k → 14%GOLD ANTI-TRUST ACTION COMMITTEE INC: $10k → 11%PROJECT 2 HEAL: $5k → 7%INSTITURE FOR FAITH & FAMILY: $5k → 8%GABRIEL AND CRISTINA DUMITRESCU: $8k → 10%UNC CENTER FOR PUBLIC TELEVISION: $5k → 11%PISGAH ASTRONOMICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $10k → 13%MARVIN ACADEMY: $7k → 14%GOLD ANTI-TRUST ACTION COMMITTEE: $3k → 14%NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS RESEARCH: $5k → 6%ALISON LITTLE: $10k → 11%SIGMA NU EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $25k → 12%IDAHO FREEDOM FOUNDATION: $10k → 8%CARON TREATMENT CENTERS (CARON FOUNDATION): $15k → 11%FRIENDS OF RUWENZORI: $7k → 9%ASHLEY HORTON: $5k → 10%UNC CENTER FOR PUBLIC TELEVISION: $5k → 11%PISGAH ASTRONOMICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $5k → 13%NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS RESEARCH: $5k → 6%SIGMA NU EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $18k → 12%IDAHO FREEDOM FOUNDATION: $5k → 8%CARON TREATMENT CENTERS: $15k → 11%FRIENDS OF RUWENZORI: $7k → 9%UNC CENTER FOR PUBLIC TELEVISION: $5k → 11%NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS RESEARCH: $5k → 6%SIGMA NU EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $18k → 12%IDAHO FREEDOM FOUNDATION: $5k → 8%CARON TREATMENT CENTERS: $15k → 11%CHARLOTTE AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS CLUB: $46k → 10%UNC CENTER FOR PUBLIC TELEVISION: $5k → 11%NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS RESEARCH: $5k → 6%SIGMA NU EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $10k → 12%IDAHO FREEDOM FOUNDATION: $5k → 8%CARON TREATMENT CENTERS (CARON FOUNDATION): $15k → 11%CAAC STEWARDSHIP FOUNDATION: $5k → 10%UNC CENTER FOR PUBLIC TELEVISION: $5k → 11%NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS RESEARCH: $5k → 6%SIGMA NU EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $10k → 12%CARON TREATMENT CENTERS: $5k → 11%CHARLOTTE AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS CLUB: $8k → 10%NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS RESEARCH: $5k → 6%NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS RESEARCH: $5k → 6%NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS RESEARCH: $5k → 6%NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS RESEARCH: $5k → 6%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

ID
MA
PA
CT
CA
VA
NC
DC
AL
FL
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$391k · 13 repeat orgs$76k to everyone else

13 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
14

Total granted

$391k
$66k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+23%

Still filing today

46%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 36% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k 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
Civil RightsAnimalsEmploymentCommunity ImprovementEducationReligionOther
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

  • NI
    NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS RESEARCH
    9× · 2017–2025 · $45k · revenue +44%
  • IF
    IDAHO FREEDOM FOUNDATION INC
    5× · 2017–2022 · $35k · revenue +44%
  • NV
    NC VALUES INSTITUTE
    3× · 2017–2020 · $8k · revenue +521%

Funded once

  • SN
    SIGMA NU EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $18k · revenue +297%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $10k
  • GA
    GABRIEL AND CRISTINA DUMITRESCU
    one grant, 2022 · $8k
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
North Carolina for the People

To educate the public on how to build a democracy where everyone participates, every vote is counted, voting rights are fully enforced, and everyone's voice is heard; to work toward a system where everyone has a say in decisions that…

Civil Rights
2
North Carolina Educational Scholarship Fund Inc

To fund academic scholarships for the young people in the state of north carolina to pursue post-secondary education trade and technical studies, undergraduate studies and graduate studies.

Education
3
South Carolina Business & Industry Political Education Committee

Promoting and protecting the free private and competitive enterprise system through research and education.

—
4
North Carolina Voter Project

Amplify unrepresented voices in north carolina elections through voter education and registration.

Civil Rights
5
North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law
Crime & Legal
6
North Carolina Public Interest Research Group Educ Fund Inc

The purpose for which this corporation is organized is: To act on behalf of the public interest by means of charitable, educational, or any other activities within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Within these…

—
7
North Carolina Press Foundation

To protect free press through promotion and education

Arts & Culture
8
North Carolina Information Innovation Fund Inc

The North Carolina Information Innovation Fund NCIIF will educate the residents of North Carolina on civic duty and election related matters, including the importance of voting in elections, national policies impacting North Carolina, how…

Public Benefit
9
North Carolina Equal Access to Justice Foundation Inc

In collaboration with the legal community, NCEAJF empowers North Carolinians to navigate the civil justice system.

Crime & Legal
10
North Carolina a Philip Randolph Educational Fund

To bring about civic betterment and social improvements.

Human Services
11
North Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities Inc

To support, represent and advocate for north carolina independent higher education.

Education
12
North Carolina Foundation for Nursing Inc

The purpose and goals of the foundation are to secure and administer funds directed toward (1) education that assures that registered nurses are prepared to meet the current and changing health care needs of north carolina citizens; (2)…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is People United for Privacy Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Project 2 Heal. 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

14 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. 14 of the 29 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/14
Grantees still filing
8/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SIGMA NU EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $62,500 · OtherSIGMA NU EDUCATION FOUNDATIONCHARLOTTE AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS CLUB: $58,400 · OtherCHARLOTTE AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS CLUBCARON TREATMENT CENTERS: $50,000 · OtherCARON TREATMENT CENTERSCARON TREATMENT CENTERS (CARON FOUNDATION): $30,000 · OtherCARON TREATMENT CENTERS (CARON FOUNDATION)Individual grant recipient: $29,300 · OtherIndividual grant recipientUNC CENTER FOR PUBLIC TELEVISION: $25,000 · OtherUNC CENTER FOR PUBLIC TELEVISION+16 more: $70,735 · Other+16 moreNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS RESEARCH: $45,000 · EmploymentNATIONAL I…IDAHO FREEDOM FOUNDATION INC: $34,500 · Community ImprovementSIGMA NU EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC: $17,500 · EducationPISGAH ASTRONOMICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $15,020 · Science & TechWHITE STAR FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA INC: $14,500 · PhilanthropyGOLD ANTI-TRUST ACTION COMMITTEE INC: $13,000 · Civil RightsElectoral Education Foundation: $1,000 · Civil Rights
Other$325,935Employment$45,000Community Improvement$34,500Education$17,500Science & Tech$15,020Philanthropy$14,500Civil Rights$14,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS RESEARCH: $45,000 over 9y, 1.0% of budgetIDAHO FREEDOM FOUNDATION INC: $34,500 over 5y, 1.2% of budgetSIGMA NU EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC: $17,500 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetPISGAH ASTRONOMICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $15,020 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetWHITE STAR FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA INC: $14,500 over 2y, 7.1% of budgetGOLD ANTI-TRUST ACTION COMMITTEE INC: $13,000 over 2y, 9.2% of budgetNC VALUES INSTITUTE: $8,000 over 3y, 13% of budgetProject 2 Heal: $5,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetPEOPLE UNITED FOR PRIVACY FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSOUTH CHARLOTTE DOG RESCUE INC: $1,500 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetNORTH CAROLINIANS FOR HOME EDUCATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetElectoral Education Foundation: $1,000 over 1y, 0.7% 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 CHARLOTTE AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS CLUB ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS RESEARCH ↗
  • Who funds IDAHO FREEDOM FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds SIGMA NU EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds PISGAH ASTRONOMICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds WHITE STAR FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA INC ↗
  • Who funds GOLD ANTI-TRUST ACTION COMMITTEE INC ↗
  • Who funds NC VALUES INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds Project 2 Heal ↗
  • Who funds PEOPLE UNITED FOR PRIVACY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds SOUTH CHARLOTTE DOG RESCUE INC ↗
  • Who funds MARVIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds NORTH CAROLINIANS FOR HOME EDUCATION ↗
  • Who funds Electoral Education Foundation ↗

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.

Duke Energy FoundationThe Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Duke Energy FoundationNC12.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Duke Energy Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile 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 Stefan & Tanya Gleason Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Stefan & Tanya Gleason Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 Stefan & Tanya Gleason Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Stefan & Tanya Gleason Foundation Inc 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 29 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Stefan & Tanya Gleason’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