Skip to content
The Never Better Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Never Better Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$33k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$30k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Philanthropy$245kEducation$226kHealth$111kYouth Development$57kReligion$10kHuman Services$5kInternational$5kArts & Culture$4kOther$0
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $3k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $30k
$2,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$827k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PHILANTHROPIES$30,000
RUN ELITE PROGRAM$2,500
CHILDREN'S MIRACLE NETWORK$500
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 (FY17–17, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ANTELOPE VALLEY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COUNCIL: $3k → 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

ID
IL
CA
UT
CO
VA
AZ
HI
TX
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.

71%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$480k · 7 repeat orgs$197k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +156% since the first grant, against -3% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
16

Total granted

$480k
$194k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+156%
-3%

Still filing today

57%
63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationHealthPhilanthropyRecreation & SportsInternationalHuman 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

  • Antelope Valley Domestic Violence Council
    2× · 2017–2018 · $5k · revenue +251%
  • SA
    Spectrum Academy
    2× · 2017–2018 · $5k · revenue +156%
  • TI
    THE INTERMOUNTAIN SUZUKI STRING INSTITUTE
    2× · 2017–2018 · $4k · revenue +69%

Funded once

  • AI
    Access Independence Incgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +60%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUB
    one grant, 2018 · $57k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $10k
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
Aerial Recovery

Aerial recovery's mission is to save lives and stop evil. through the creation and deployment of humanitarian special operators, aerial recovery brings together selected veterans, first responders, and mission-qualified civilians who,…

—
2
Adaptive Surfers Academy

Surf competition training for Paralympic athletes

Recreation & Sports
3
World Aid Runners
Health
4
Helicopters for Heroes
Human Services
5
Heart Healers International

Improve outcomes for African children with heart disease

Health
6
International Humanity Foundation
Philanthropy
7
Heart Bridge International

Heart Bridge International exists to equip and empower Christians around the world to fulfill the Great Commission. The organization provides free ministry training, discipleship resources, and practical coaching to under-resourced…

Religion
8
Our Heroes Dreams

To improve the lives of our nations warriors (veterans, first responders, peace officers, and their families) by helping them build a new mission and purpose in life, support their recovery and reintegration, and empower them to accomplish…

Health
9
Global Warriors-Powered By Love

Train and equip first responders to reset their nervous system in order to prevent PTSD and other impacts of prolonged trauma.

Health
10
Best in the World Teachers
Education
11
Intracranial Hypertension Research Foundation

Fund and conduct research relating to intracranial hypertension disorder; to develop therapies, treatments, and ultimately a cure for people suffering from such disorder; to disseminate such information to the medical community and…

Philanthropy
12
Heroes for Humanity

Veteran special operators using skills, capabilities, expertise, and experience to make a difference in the world.

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tbi Warrior Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Make Kids and Teachers First. 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

17 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. 17 of the 25 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/17
Grantees still filing
7/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PHILANTHROPIES: $230,000 · OtherPHILANTHROPIESBRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY: $211,500 · OtherBRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITYAccess Independence Inc: $100,000 · OtherAccess Independence IncBOYS & GIRLS CLUB: $56,800 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUB+8 more: $23,648 · OtherHEARTS AND HANDS FOR HUMANITY: $15,000 · PhilanthropyMAKE KIDS AND TEACHERS FIRST: $5,000 · PhilanthropySpectrum Academy: $4,958 · EducationLaunching Leaders Worldwide Inc: $3,500 · EducationHOPE INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY: $1,000 · EducationTBI WARRIOR FOUNDATION: $1,000 · EducationANGELMAN SYNDROME FOUNDATION INC: $9,000 · Health+1 more: $240 · HealthAntelope Valley Domestic Violence Council: $5,000 · Human ServicesTHE INTERMOUNTAIN SUZUKI STRING INSTITUTE: $3,700 · Arts & CultureRUN ELITE PROGRAM: $2,500 · Recreation & SportsOlympians & Paralympians Relief Fund: $1,000 · Recreation & SportsType of Wood Charities: $2,500 · International
Other$621,948Philanthropy$20,000Education$10,458Health$9,240Human Services$5,000Arts & Culture$3,700Recreation & Sports$3,500International$2,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAccess Independence Inc: $100,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetHEARTS AND HANDS FOR HUMANITY: $15,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetANGELMAN SYNDROME FOUNDATION INC: $9,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetMAKE KIDS AND TEACHERS FIRST: $5,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetAntelope Valley Domestic Violence Council: $5,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSpectrum Academy: $4,958 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLaunching Leaders Worldwide Inc: $3,500 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetType of Wood Charities: $2,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetRUN ELITE PROGRAM: $2,500 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetHOPE INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOlympians & Paralympians Relief Fund: $1,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetTBI WARRIOR FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetRICHARD BREUNIG FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetCHILDREN'S MIRACLE NETWORK: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSHADOW HILLS RIDING CLUB INC: $240 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGARY & JEANETTE HERBERT FOUNDATION: $200 over 1y, 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.

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 …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 The Never Better Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Never Better Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 25 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 Never Better’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