Skip to content
Te Connectivity Foundation at a glance

· 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.

$2.0M
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$725k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

International$4.9MEducation$3.0MYouth Development$1.6MRecreation & Sports$1.5MScience & Tech$1.2MPublic Safety & Disaster$230kEmployment$100k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.9M
$500,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$21M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION$725,000
MK LEVEL PLAYING FIELD INSTITUTE AKA SMASH$650,000
TECHNOVATION$500,000
SCIENCE CLUBS INTERNATIONAL$50,000
PER SCHOLAS$50,000
AMERICAN RED CROSS$10,000
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.

show:

Its 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%AMERICAN RED CROSS SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA: $50k → 22%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $70k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

NH
NY
MA
IA
PA
CA
VA
DC
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 8% of Te Connectivity Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Te Connectivity Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 2.7% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
$9.7M · 7 repeat orgs$1.8M to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
7

Total granted

$9.7M
$1.8M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+8%

Still filing today

71%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% 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
Science & TechInternationalEmploymentPhilanthropySocial ScienceHuman ServicesOther
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

  • UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $3.8M · revenue -16%
  • ML
    MK LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
    4× · 2017–2022 · $2.7M
  • T
    TECHNOVATION
    5× · 2021–2025 · $1.6M · revenue +52%

Funded once

  • ML
    MK LEVEL PLAYING FIELD INSTITUTE
    one grant, 2019 · $648k · revenue -45%
  • IF
    INTERNATIONAL FIRST COMMITTEE ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2017 · $400k
  • IF
    International FIRST Committee Associatio co Toohey Law Groupgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $400k · revenue ×19
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
Delterra Inc

Redesign human systems for the good of people and the planet by developing innovative, scalable solutions.

Environment
2
Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams Inc

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…

Education
3
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

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.

Education
4
Sentinel Research

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.

Public Safety & Disaster
5
MRIGlobal

To improve the lives of people through innovative scientific and engineering research.

Science & Tech
6
International Development Enterprises

See schedule o for a more detailed description of ide's mission statement and achievements.

International
7
Mit Enterprise Forum Inc

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.

—
8
Activate Global Inc

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…

Environment
9
International Aids Vaccine Initiative Inc

A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.

International
10
Charles Stark Draper Laboratory Inc

Draper's engineers design, develop and deploy advanced technology solutions for the world's most difficult and important problems.

Science & Tech
11
Sri International

Sri international creates world-changing solutions making people safer, healthier, and more productive through scientific research & development.

Science & Tech
12
Global Technology Industry Association Inc

The organization is dedicated to advancing information technology industry growth through its educational programs, market research, networking events, professional certifications, and public policy advocacy.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mk Level Playing Field Institute; 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.
05the grantee network

11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC: $3,800,000 · InternationalUNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INCGlobal Impact: $1,000,000 · InternationalGlobal Impact+1 more: $20,000 · InternationalMK LEVEL PLAYING FIELD: $2,715,218 · OtherMK LEVEL PLAYING FIELDMK LEVEL PLAYING FIELD INSTITUTE AKA SMASH: $1,150,000 · OtherMK LEVEL PLAYING FIELD INSTITUTE AKA S…INTERNATIONAL FIRST COMMITTEE ASSOCIATION: $400,000 · OtherINTERNATIONAL FIRST COMMITTEE ASSOCIAT…+2 more: $35,000 · OtherTECHNOVATION: $1,610,000 · Science & TechTECHNOVATIONInternational FIRST Committee Associatio co Toohey Law Group: $400,000 · Science & TechInternational FIRST C…For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST): $260,000 · Science & TechFor Inspiration and R…SCIENCE CLUBS INTERNATIONAL INC: $150,000 · Science & TechSCIENCE CLUBS INTERNA…MK LEVEL PLAYING FIELD INSTITUTE: $647,500 · Social ScienceAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $195,000 · Human ServicesPER SCHOLAS INC: $100,000 · EmploymentDESAI FOUNDATION: $50,000 · Philanthropy
International$4,820,000Other$4,300,218Science & Tech$2,420,000Social Science$647,500Human Services$195,000Employment$100,000Philanthropy$50,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC: $3,800,000 over 9y, 0.8% of budgetTECHNOVATION: $1,610,000 over 5y, 9.6% of budgetGlobal Impact: $1,000,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetMK LEVEL PLAYING FIELD INSTITUTE: $647,500 over 1y, 7.9% of budgetFor Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST): $260,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $195,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSCIENCE CLUBS INTERNATIONAL INC: $150,000 over 2y, 91% of budgetPER SCHOLAS INC: $100,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetDESAI FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetDIRECT RELIEF: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

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.

American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE7.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Te Connectivity Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Te Connectivity Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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.

    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 16 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 Te Connectivity’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