· Private foundation
Te Connectivity 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
- $250k+3 grants · $1.9M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION | $725,000 |
| MK LEVEL PLAYING FIELD INSTITUTE AKA SMASH | $650,000 |
| TECHNOVATION | $500,000 |
| PER SCHOLAS | $50,000 |
| SCIENCE CLUBS INTERNATIONAL | $50,000 |
| AMERICAN RED CROSS | $10,000 |
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 human-services grants (FY23–24, $120k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% 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
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 8% of Te Connectivity 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.
7 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k 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 NATIONS FOUNDATION INC9× · 2017–2025 · $3.8M · revenue -16%- MLMK LEVEL PLAYING FIELD4× · 2017–2022 · $2.7M
- TTECHNOVATION5× · 2021–2025 · $1.6M · revenue +52%
Funded once
- MLMK LEVEL PLAYING FIELD INSTITUTEone grant, 2019 · $648k · revenue -45%
- IFINTERNATIONAL FIRST COMMITTEE ASSOCIATIONone grant, 2017 · $400k
- IFInternational FIRST Committee Associatio co Toohey Law Groupgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $400k · revenue ×19
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.
Redesign human systems for the good of people and the planet by developing innovative, scalable solutions.
FIRST aspires to bring together incident response and security teams from every country across the world to ensure a safe internet for all. Effective response is a global task, mirroring the global nature of the internet. Based on a peer…
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
We help the public by foreseeing and reacting to globally impactful and existential catastrophes. We forecast near-term risks, detect black swans earlier, and deploy our emergency response team to take mitigating action.
To improve the lives of people through innovative scientific and engineering research.
See schedule o for a more detailed description of ide's mission statement and achievements.
We inform, connect, and coach technology entrepreneurs-enabling them to rapidly transform ideas into world-changing companies. We are a global network of local organizations, inspired by MIT, and open to the world.
Activate empowers scientists to reinvent the world by bringing their research to market. activate partners with u.s. based funders, research institutions, and other pillars of the hard technology community to help entrepreneurial…
A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.
Draper's engineers design, develop and deploy advanced technology solutions for the world's most difficult and important problems.
Sri international creates world-changing solutions making people safer, healthier, and more productive through scientific research & development.
The organization is dedicated to advancing information technology industry growth through its educational programs, market research, networking events, professional certifications, and public policy advocacy.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mk Level Playing Field Institute and the most unlike its peers is Desai Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 of the 16 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 UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds TECHNOVATION ↗
- Who funds Global Impact ↗
- Who funds MK LEVEL PLAYING FIELD INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds International FIRST Committee Associatio co Toohey Law Group ↗
- Who funds For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds SCIENCE CLUBS INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds PER SCHOLAS INC ↗
- Who funds DESAI FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds DIRECT RELIEF ↗
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 Online Giving Foundation 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 Te Connectivity 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.
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.