Skip to content
Stephen a Schwarzman Education Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Stephen a Schwarzman Education Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$196k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$105k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0158% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$17MInternational$13MCommunity Improvement$2.4MArts & Culture$400kPublic Benefit$236kOther$0
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $16k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $180k
$75,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$14M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ROYAL INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS$104,670
WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS$75,000
CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE$16,000
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.

US giving: 39% of grant dollars ($13M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 61% that went abroad ($20M) is mapped below.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: $6.8M → 17%WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS: $300k → 14%THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: $4.0M → 17%WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS: $100k → 14%THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: $892k → 17%WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS: $100k → 14%INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: $281k → 17%WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS: $100k → 14%WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS: $100k → 14%WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS: $75k → 14%CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: $74k → 14%CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: $45k → 14%CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: $32k → 14%CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: $16k → 14%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.

Beyond the US: 61% of all-years giving ($20M)

2 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
China$17M · 6 grants
United Kingdom$3.4M · 8 grants
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$21M · 5 repeat orgs$129k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
25

Total granted

$21M
$129k

Still filing today

40%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’20’21’22’23’24
Social ScienceInternationalOther
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

  • TU
    TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY EDUCATION FOUNDATION
    4× · 2017–2023 · $17M
  • TR
    THE RHODES TRUST
    3× · 2017–2020 · $2.6M
  • RI
    ROYAL INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
    5× · 2020–2024 · $783k

Funded once

  • TU
    TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2017 · $115k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $1k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $1k
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
04the grantee network

3 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. 3 of the 31 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
3/3
Grantees still filing
2/3
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $16,589,766 · OtherTSINGHUA UNIVERSITY EDUCATION FOUNDATIONTHE RHODES TRUST: $2,629,378 · OtherTHE RHODES TRUSTROYAL INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: $783,384 · Other+25 more: $128,727 · OtherINSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INC: $11,972,496 · InternationalINSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INC+1 more: $167,190 · InternationalWOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS: $775,000 · Social Science
Other$20,131,255International$12,139,686Social Science$775,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetINSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INC: $11,972,496 over 4y, 2.5% of budgetWOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS: $775,000 over 6y, 1.0% of budgetCARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: $167,190 over 4y, 0.1% 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 INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INC ↗
  • Who funds WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS ↗
  • Who funds CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Stephen a Schwarzman Education Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Stephen a Schwarzman Education Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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 Stephen a Schwarzman Education Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Stephen a Schwarzman Education Foundation 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 31 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Stephen a Schwarzman Education’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