· Private foundation
The Roddenberry Foundation
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 FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k22 grants · $91k
- $10k–50k92 grants · $1.3M
- $50k–250k14 grants · $885k
- $250k+3 grants · $1.7M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE J GLADSTONE INSTITUTE | $1,000,000 |
| ACADEMY FOUNDATION | $400,000 |
| ELYPTA | $333,333 |
| THE CONTENTMENT FOUNDATION | $150,000 |
| THE CONTENTMENT FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| HARMONY PROJECT | $75,000 |
| CROHNS AND COLITIS FOUNDATION | $60,000 |
| GENUNITY INC | $50,000 |
| INFINITE FOCUS INC | $50,000 |
| SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) | $50,000 |
| HOLLYWOOD FOOD COALITION | $50,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $50,000 |
| COLLEGE TOGETHER | $50,000 |
| RASA PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION | $50,000 |
| SOCIAL GOOD FUND | $50,000 |
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 US giving — 79% of grant dollars ($23M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 21% that went abroad ($6.3M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY18–24, $1.8M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 92% 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
Beyond the US — 21% of all-years giving ($6.3M)
58 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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 +50% since the first grant, against +22% for the ones you funded once.
84 repeat relationships — 29 still active in FY2024, 55 since wound down; 99 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, 54% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.8M 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
- TJTHE J DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES2× · 2018–2023 · $1.8M · revenue +38%
- CFCONTENTMENT FOUNDATION6× · 2018–2024 · $1.5M · revenue +256% · 28% of their budget
- HPHarmony Project7× · 2018–2024 · $660k · revenue +25%
Funded once
- GIGLADSTONE INSTITUTES-PER AGREEMENTone grant, 2022 · $1.0M
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · $333k
- VRVOTE RUN LEAD INCgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $250k · revenue +154%
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.
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…
Our mission is to create a fair and inclusive economy where underserved people have quality financial choices and opportunities to improve their economic well-being. we find and help build innovative companies with the potential to reach…
Upturn advances equity and justice in the design, governance, and use of technology.
Common future is a network of pioneering leaders across the u.s. and canada who work deeply within their communities to create alternative approaches to business, philanthropy, and investing. we envision an economy that has transitioned…
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
Supporting industry transformation towards climate-positive and make green careers transitions and driving the adoption of green workforce development practices broadly.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
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.
The global impact investing network, inc. is dedicated to increasing the scale and effectiveness of impact investing to solve systemic problems facing people and the planet. impact investments are investments made into companies,…
/The Rules is a global network of activists, organizers, designers, coders, researchers, writers and others dedicated to changing the rules that create inequality, climate change, and poverty around the world.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc and the most unlike its peers is Hua Momona Foundation. 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 12 years old; the field is 14. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
186 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. 186 of the 684 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 ACADEMY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE J DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES ↗
- Who funds CONTENTMENT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AS YOU SOW ↗
- Who funds Harmony Project ↗
- Who funds CROHN'S & COLITIS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Space for Giants USA Inc ↗
- Who funds VOTE RUN LEAD INC ↗
- Who funds GENERATION YOU EMPLOYED INC ↗
- Who funds DIGITAL GREEN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HOLLYWOOD FOOD COALITION ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL GOOD FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Game Changers Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds X PRIZE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
- Who funds SEACAMP ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION X LABS INC ↗
- Who funds DASRA ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC ↗
- Who funds THE RESOLUTION PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds POP CULTURE HERO COALITION ↗
- Who funds FERNANDO PULLUM COMMUNITY ARTS CENTER ↗
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: Echoing Green Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · New Profit Inc · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · New Venture Fund · The Ford Foundation · Ffwd · Camelback Ventures · Dovetail Impact Foundation (Fka David Weekley Family Foundation) · Impactassetsinc · The Jm Kaplan Fund Inc
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 Roddenberry 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.
- Hera Inc — 100% of income from government
- Youthbuild Global Inc — 69% of income from government
- Chainless Change Inc — 0% of income from government
- Community Labor United Inc — 0% of income from government
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 Roddenberry Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Roddenberry 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.