How much did THE SUSAN THOMPSON BUFFETT FOUNDATION grant in FY2024?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 57% of THE SUSAN THOMPSON BUFFETT FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2018

scholarshipalice buffetbuffet outstandingconway strageticregents irvinevoicenational blackwomens reproductive

2019

technical agriculturealemv surgicalalice outstandingparenthood worldwideregents technicaltablereproduccion elegida

2020

parenthood worlwidetechnical agriculturalmid plainsalice outstandinghealth systemdue progressaustin

2021

janes duemidplainsalice outstandingclinic accessethiopia ministrytechnical agriculturelittle priest

2022

metronebraska-kearneynebraska-lincolnnebraska-omahaalice outstandinglittle priestpriest tribal

2023

pacific women'swomen's forumboard regents-nebraskaregents-nebraska technicaltechnical agrichealth bureaukearney board

2024

amalgamated charitiablepllcpregnancy justicerising foundaitonmake roadregents nctablack girl

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 398 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k2 grants · $11k
$10k–50k6 grants · $129k
$50k–250k90 grants · $13M
$250k+300 grants · $896M

$452,410

Median grant

States reached

$2.8B

Total assets

Largest grants

NAF HOTLINE FUND$60,574,746
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL WELFARE NIGERIA$50,000,000
THE GLOBAL FUND TO FIGHT AIDS TUBERCULOSIS AND MALARIA$35,000,000
HEALTH DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP FOR AFRICA AND THE CARIBBEAN$33,635,887
MINISTRY OF HEALTH RWANDA$32,772,283
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH TRAINING (CIRHT)$30,000,987
KING FAISAL HOSPITAL RWANDA FOUNDATION$27,874,770
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC$25,386,143
MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GENDER ELDERY AND CHILDREN TANZANIA$24,300,000
AFRICAN UNION DEVELOPMENT AGENCY NEW PARTNERSHIP FOR AFRICA'S DEVELOPMENT$21,003,001
TOGO MINISTRY OF HEALTH$20,000,003
OROMIA HEALTH BUREAU$15,000,000
INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT$15,000,000
MINISTRY OF HEALTH SIERRA LEONE$15,000,000
AMHARA REGIONAL HEALTH BUREAU$15,000,000

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $39.7M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13% — the area typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

88%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$4.5B · 467 repeat orgs$624M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +52% since the first grant, against +41% for the ones you funded once.

467 repeat relationships — 207 still active in FY2024, 260 since wound down; 67 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

467

335

Total granted

$4.5B

$346M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+52%

+41%

Still filing today

55%

19%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 69% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $278M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

HealthCivil RightsEducationHuman ServicesInternationalPhilanthropyOther

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

NH
NAF HOTLINE FUND
8× · 2017–2024 · $343M · revenue +120% · 100% of their budget
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC
8× · 2017–2024 · $200M · revenue +38%
HOPEWELL FUND
8× · 2017–2024 · $112M · revenue +59% · 34% of their budget

Funded once

MO
MINISTRY OF HEALTH REPUBLIC OF RWANDA
one grant, 2023 · $30M
KF
KING FAISAL HOSPITAL RWANDA FOUNDATION
one grant, 2023 · $20M
UN
UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND
one grant, 2021 · $20M

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

Planned Parenthood Votes Ct

To protect women's health and reproductive choice through advocacy in connecticut.

—

International Planned Parenthood Federation

Ippfwhr (dba fos feminista) aims to improve the quality of life of individuals by promoting for sexual and reproductive health and rights through advocacy and services.

International

Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan

To provide high quality, reproductive healthcare services to promote healthy sexuality and responsible decision, and to protect the right to make these decisions.

Health

Planned Parenthood Votes Ri

To protect women's health and reproductive choice through advocacy in Rhode Island.

—

Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance

WRRAP's mission is to ensure that individuals from all walks of life are afforded the equal opportunity to gain access to safe and legal abortion services.

Health

Association of Professors of Gynecology

To promote excellence in training and continuing education in the profession of obstetrics and gynecology

Health

Pro-Choice Washington

To protect and promote every persons right to access the full range of reproductive healthcare choices in Washington State, including safe and legal abortion, through education, advocacy, lobbying and coalition-building

—

Pro-Choice Arizona

Pro-Choice Arizona centers abolition and reproductive justice values to prioritize community needs. We advance reproductive equity, pregnancy and family justice, and abortion access for all folks living in Arizona through direct service…

Health

Women Winning

We are changing the face of power by activating pro-choice campaign operatives, candidates, and elected officials who are committed to reproductive health, rights and justice, and working to protect the safety, dignity and bodily autonomy…

Public Benefit

Arizona Family Health Partnership

To make sexual and reproductive healthcare accessible to everyone

—

Planned Parenthood

The organization provides, promotes, and protects access to reproductive and sexual health care.

Health

The Birth Center

Provides gynecologic, pregnancy, & birth health care services, using a midwifery model of care

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Institute for Reproductive and the most unlike its peers is Red Salmon Arts. 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.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 30 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) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/364

the rest of the field

11%

206,164/1,819,201

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.

05the grantee network

349 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

109

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

117

Early backer (in before they grew)

340/349

Grantees still filing

267/349

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$3,076,540,658Health$719,660,624Philanthropy$456,900,756International$419,368,985Civil Rights$216,556,642Environment$143,806,179Education$117,594,637

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.

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.

Hopewell FundDC126.9× affinity87 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Hopewell Fund · Planned Parenthood Federation Of · New Venture Fund · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · Groundswell Fund · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · NEO Philanthropy Inc · The Prentice Foundation Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · National Institute for Reproductive · Women Donors Network

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 organisation THE SUSAN THOMPSON BUFFETT 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

10get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: THE MAMA-PIKIN FOUNDATION INC.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

high risk

~1 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 5 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

5 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 7.4× since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 452947613 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on THE MAMA-PIKIN FOUNDATION INC, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 1 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 100% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

THE SUSAN THOMPSON BUFFETT FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

349 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation?

More from the funding graph

THE SUSAN THOMPSON BUFFETT FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

349 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation?

More from the funding graph