· Private foundation
The Chase Foundation of Virginia
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
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.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k30 grants · $129k
- $10k–50k35 grants · $592k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Acton Institute | $40,000 |
| Fraser Institute | $35,000 |
| CO2 Coalition | $30,000 |
| Reason Foundation | $30,000 |
| Competitive Enterprise Institute (DBA Network for Good) | $30,000 |
| The Heartland Institute | $25,000 |
| Committee to Unleash Prosperity | $25,000 |
| Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research | $25,000 |
| Institute for Justice | $20,000 |
| Goldwater Institute | $20,000 |
| Turning Point USA | $20,000 |
| Moving Picture Institute | $17,000 |
| Institute for Energy Research | $15,000 |
| Accuracy in Media | $15,000 |
| Libertas Institute | $15,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 63% 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +57% since the first grant, against +9% for the ones you funded once.
83 repeat relationships — 61 still active in FY2024, 22 since wound down; 3 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, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k 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
- IFINSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE8× · 2017–2024 · $292k · revenue +57%
- TRTHE REASON FOUNDATION8× · 2017–2024 · $272k · revenue +80%
- AIActon Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty8× · 2017–2024 · $265k · revenue +3%
Funded once
- AFAmericans for Prosperity Foundationone grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue -63%
- BGBarry Goldwater Instituteone grant, 2017 · $20k
- EFEVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $12k · revenue +363%
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 american enterprise institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening free enterprise. aei pursues these ideals through independent thinking and the…
To educate the public on constitutional issues and public policy matters. We are dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, peace through strength, limited government, free enterprise, and the values embodied in the Declaration of…
Competitive enterprise institute (cei) is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. we believe that consumers are best helped not by government regulation but by being…
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
Disseminate information and education about pertinent economic, social and governmental topics, via print, web and other media to educate the public about the principles of LIbertarianism.
The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…
The peterson institute for international economics (piie) is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening prosperity and human welfare in the global economy through expert analysis and practical…
The mission of independence institute is to empower individuals and to educate citizens,legislators and opinion makers about public policies that enhance personal and economic freedom.
To provide accurate, objective information and analysis on international strategic issues for legislators, diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business leaders, economists, the military, defense commentators, journalists,…
To teach and disseminate educational materials to the public.
To promote the ideals of free market economics, individual liberty, and limited government through the conduct of public opinion research.
To provide thoughtful, conservative solutions to the challenges presented by education, workforce, labor and employment issues.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Freedomworks Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Adam Smith Institute. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 37 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) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% 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.
80 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 80 of the 107 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 INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds THE REASON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty ↗
- Who funds THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds CATO INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds BARRY GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds Institute for Humane Studies ↗
- Who funds Foundation for Economic Education Inc ↗
- Who funds MACKINAC CENTER ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds TURNING POINT USA INC ↗
- Who funds MOVING PICTURE INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION INC ↗
- Who funds UNLEASH PROSPERITY INC ↗
- Who funds THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY FOR LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES ↗
- Who funds Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research ↗
- Who funds VIRGINIA INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY ↗
- Who funds PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH CENTER ↗
- Who funds TAX FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FREEDOMWORKS INC ↗
- Who funds Pacific Legal Foundation ↗
- Who funds PROJECT VERITAS ↗
- Who funds THE JOHN LOCKE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds FREEDOMWORKS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds JUDICIAL WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds STATE POLICY NETWORK ↗
- Who funds LUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE FOR AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS INC ↗
- Who funds STUDENTS FOR LIBERTY INC ↗
- Who funds Atlas Economic Research Foundation ↗
- Who funds Libertas Network ↗
- Who funds MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH INC ↗
- Who funds CASCADE POLICY INSTITUTE ↗
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: Donors Trust Inc · The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc · Charles Koch Foundation · The Roe Foundation · Charles Koch Institute · Garvey Kansas Foundation · Sarah Scaife Foundation Incorporated · Adolph Coors Foundation · Bradley Impact Fund Inc · Atlas Economic Research Foundation · John William Pope Foundation · The Dunn 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 The Chase Foundation of Virginia 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Chase Foundation of Virginia?
Find your warmest path to The Chase Foundation of Virginia 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.