Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Roddenberry Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$4.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
131
Grants FY2024still arriving
17
States reached
$1.0M
Largest
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Health$9.6MArts & Culture$3.2MEnvironment$2.8MFood & Nutrition$2.2MEducation$1.9MSocial Science$1.3MInternational$1.1MScience & Tech$795kOther$0
02FY2024 · 131 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k22 grants · $91k
  • $10k–50k92 grants · $1.3M
  • $50k–250k14 grants · $885k
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.7M
$12,000
Median grant
17
States reached
$85M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
RASA PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION$50,000
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE)$50,000
HOLLYWOOD FOOD COALITION$50,000
FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS$50,000
FREE ALAS$50,000
GENUNITY INC$50,000
COLLEGE TOGETHER$50,000
SOCIAL GOOD FUND$50,000
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.

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.

show:

Its 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ROSA ES ROJO INC: $50k → 8%THINKING HUTS: $15k → 9%REALIZE IMPACT: $13k → 10%SPOON FOUNDATION: $15k → 12%REALIZE IMPACT: $3k → 10%RESPECTABILITY: $10k → 8%THE LIBERATION FOUNDATION: $500 → 22%IMPACT CUBED: $10k → 11%TIDES CENTER: $50k → 10%ASYLUM SEEKER ADVOCACY PROJECT: $38k → 17%ASYLUM SEEKER ADVOCACY PROJECT: $13k → 17%TURNOUT INC: $50k → 10%FREEFORM: $50k → 14%FREEFROM: $2k → 14%THE CONTENTMENT FOUNDATION: $300k → 14%THE CONTENTMENT FOUNDATION: $300k → 14%THE CONTENTEMENT FOUNDATION: $300k → 14%THE CONTENTMENT FOUNDATION: $150k → 14%THE CONTENTMENT FOUNDATION: $150k → 14%THE CONTENTMENT FOUNDATION: $100k → 14%THE CONTENTMENT FOUNDATION: $100k → 14%THE CONTENTMENT FOUNDATION: $68k → 14%THE CONTENTMENT FOUNDATION: $14k → 14%HANDS FOR HOPE: $5k → 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

ME
NH
WA
ID
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
IA
OH
PA
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
MO
VA
MD
AZ
AR
TN
NC
SC
DC
HI
LA
MS
GA
TX
FL

Beyond the US: 21% of all-years giving ($6.3M)

58 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
Uganda$848k · 58 grants
Kenya$717k · 60 grants
Sweden$667k · 2 grants
Nigeria$446k · 46 grants
India$362k · 39 grants
United Kingdom$337k · 7 grants
Singapore$264k · 2 grants
France$253k · 2 grants
Hong Kong$250k · 1 grant
Ghana$207k · 22 grants
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

51%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$15M · 84 repeat orgs$14M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +50% since the first grant, against +22% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

84
494

Total granted

$15M
$12M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+50%
+22%

Still filing today

52%
23%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 54% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.8M went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationArts & CultureHealthHuman ServicesInternationalCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • TJ
    THE J DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES
    2× · 2018–2023 · $1.8M · revenue +38%
  • CF
    CONTENTMENT FOUNDATION
    6× · 2018–2024 · $1.5M · revenue +256% · 28% of their budget
  • HP
    Harmony Project
    7× · 2018–2024 · $660k · revenue +25%

Funded once

  • GI
    GLADSTONE INSTITUTES-PER AGREEMENT
    one grant, 2022 · $1.0M
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $333k
  • GY
    GENERATION YOU EMPLOYED INC
    one grant, 2020 · $250k · revenue -28%
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
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
2
Accion International

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…

International
3
Upturn Inc

Upturn advances equity and justice in the design, governance, and use of technology.

—
4
Common Future

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…

Community Improvement
5
Actionaid Usa

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…

Social Science
6
Work on Climate

Supporting industry transformation towards climate-positive and make green careers transitions and driving the adoption of green workforce development practices broadly.

Environment
7
CarbonPlan

Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.

Environment
8
Asociacion Interamericana Para La Defensa Del Ambiente

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.

Crime & Legal
9
Open Markets Institute

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.

Education
10
Global Impact Investing Network Inc

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,…

Philanthropy
11
Rules Foundation

/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.

—
12
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

186 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. 186 of the 684 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.

8
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
60
Early backer (in before they grew)
179/186
Grantees still filing
120/186
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE J GLADSTONE INSTITUTE: $1,950,000 · OtherTHE J GLADSTONE INSTITUTEGLADSTONE INSTITUTES: $1,700,000 · OtherGLADSTONE INSTITUTESAS YOU SOW: $1,260,000 · OtherAS YOU SOWGLADSTONE INSTITUTES-PER AGREEMENT: $1,000,000 · OtherGLADSTONE INSTITUTES-PER AGREEMENT+144 more: $8,728,556 · Other+144 moreTHE J DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES: $1,750,000 · HealthTHE J DAVID …CROHN'S & COLITIS FOUNDATION INC: $595,000 · HealthCROHN'S & CO…+6 more: $254,500 · Health+6 moreACADEMY FOUNDATION: $2,000,000 · Arts & CultureACADEMY FO…SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: $100,000 · Arts & Culture+5 more: $256,000 · Arts & Culture+5 moreHarmony Project: $660,000 · EducationDIGITAL GREEN FOUNDATION: $250,000 · EducationSOCIAL GOOD FUND INC: $202,000 · Education+16 more: $759,000 · EducationCONTENTMENT FOUNDATION: $1,481,628 · Human Services+5 more: $252,000 · Human ServicesVOTE RUN LEAD INC: $250,000 · Community ImprovementTHE RESOLUTION PROJECT INC: $96,500 · Community ImprovementALLIANCE FOR A JUST SOCIETY: $50,000 · Community ImprovementUNITED VISION FOR IDAHO INC: $50,000 · Community ImprovementCREATIVE REACTION LAB: $50,000 · Community ImprovementGENUNITY INC: $50,000 · Community ImprovementAngels For Angels: $30,000 · Community ImprovementCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCE: $25,000 · Community ImprovementOakland Fund for Public Innovation: $25,000 · Community ImprovementSpace for Giants USA Inc: $325,000 · AnimalsCONSERVATION X LABS INC: $100,000 · AnimalsMAUI HUMANE SOCIETY: $35,000 · Animals
Other$14,638,556Health$2,599,500Arts & Culture$2,356,000Education$1,871,000Human Services$1,733,628Community Improvement$626,500Animals$460,000

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetACADEMY FOUNDATION: $2,000,000 over 4y, 1.0% of budgetTHE J DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES: $1,750,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetCONTENTMENT FOUNDATION: $1,481,628 over 6y, 28% of budgetAS YOU SOW: $1,260,000 over 5y, 8.2% of budgetHarmony Project: $660,000 over 7y, 2.9% of budgetCROHN'S & COLITIS FOUNDATION INC: $595,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetSpace for Giants USA Inc: $325,000 over 5y, 13% of budgetGENERATION YOU EMPLOYED INC: $250,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetDIGITAL GREEN FOUNDATION: $250,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetVOTE RUN LEAD INC: $250,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetHOLLYWOOD FOOD COALITION: $214,000 over 5y, 1.5% of budgetSOCIAL GOOD FUND INC: $202,000 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetGame Changers Foundation Inc: $200,000 over 1y, 8.1% of budgetX PRIZE FOUNDATION INC: $110,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Inc: $102,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetSEACAMP ASSOCIATION INC: $100,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetCONSERVATION X LABS INC: $100,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetSMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: $100,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDASRA: $100,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $100,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetTHE RESOLUTION PROJECT INC: $96,500 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetPOP CULTURE HERO COALITION: $65,550 over 5y, 16% of budgetFERNANDO PULLUM COMMUNITY ARTS CENTER: $64,000 over 6y, 1.8% of budgetGROUNDED STRATEGIES: $62,500 over 3y, 5.5% of budgetThe Spacekind Foundation: $60,000 over 6y, 23% of budgetSKIRBALL CULTURAL CENTER: $60,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetHILARITY FOR CHARITY INC: $57,500 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetSOCIAL JUSTICE COLLABORATIVE: $56,989 over 4y, 2.9% of budgetWARM COOKIES OF THE REVOLUTION: $55,000 over 3y, 33% of budgetTALKINGPOINTS: $52,000 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetFreefrom: $52,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMY HEALTH ED INC: $52,000 over 2y, 40% of budgetBROOKLYN INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH INC: $52,000 over 2y, 8.3% of budgetNOT AN ALTERNATIVE INC: $52,000 over 2y, 15% of budgetIMMSCHOOLS: $52,000 over 2y, 19% of budgetFREE ALAS: $50,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetASYLUM SEEKER ADVOCACY PROJECT INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetINDIGENOUS CREATIVES COLLECTIVE: $50,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetUNITED VISION FOR IDAHO INC: $50,000 over 1y, 43% of budgetfinEQUITY Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 8.8% of budgetIndigenous Vision: $50,000 over 1y, 31% of budgetRespond Crisis Translation: $50,000 over 1y, 8.4% of budgetAMERICA ON TECH INC: $50,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetESQ Apprentice Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 66% of budgetFOOD CONNECT CO: $50,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetCOLLECTIVE LIBERTY: $50,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetData For Black Lives Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetPURPLE HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 7.3% 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.

  • 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 GENERATION YOU EMPLOYED INC ↗
  • Who funds DIGITAL GREEN FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds VOTE RUN LEAD INC ↗
  • 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 CONSERVATION X LABS INC ↗
  • Who funds SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION ↗
  • 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 ↗

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.

Echoing Green IncNY48× affinity22 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Roddenberry Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Roddenberry Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 130%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 69%
  • 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
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
13get no government money at all
40report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
2rely on government for over half their income
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.
05Through Plinth

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.

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 684 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 Roddenberry’s filings →

More from the funding graph