Skip to content
VertueLab at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

VertueLab

To unleash innovation and entrepreneurship that will solve environmental challenges and catalyze shared economic prosperity.

$111k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$70k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Science & Tech$952kEnvironment$251kCommunity Improvement$223kSocial Science$11kFood & Nutrition$11kYouth Development$5k
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $41k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $70k
$21,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
U OF W CLEAN ENERGY TESTBEDS$69,732
U OF W COMOTION LABS$21,000
CLEAN TECH ALLIANCE$19,876
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%OPCONNECT INC: $9k → 8%FOOD4ALL: $11k → 10%FOCAL TECHNOLOGIES: $9k → 12%AMPERE SCIENTIFIC: $15k → 13%CITY OF SPRINGFIELD: $78k → 15%OREGON TECH FOUNDATION: $50k → 16%WARM SPRINGS COMMUNITY ACTION: $25k → 16%OREGON STATE UNIV FOUNDATION: $50k → 18%CLEAN TECH ALLIANCE: $98k → 9%WASHINGTON STATE UNIV FOUND: $50k → 20%ONBOARD DYNAMICS: $12k → 10%LATINO FOUNDERS: $180k → 12%GADUSOL LABORATORIES: $5k → 18%CLEAN TECH ALLIANCE: $20k → 9%ONBOARD DYNAMICS: $10k → 10%SKIP TECHNOLOGIES: $10k → 12%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $232k → 18%U OF W COMOTION LABS: $21k → 9%ONBOARD DYNAMICS: $10k → 10%SKIP TECHNOLOGIES: $10k → 12%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $110k → 18%BLUE DOT PHOTONICS: $5k → 9%BLADE RUNNER ENERGY: $6k → 10%PSU FOUNDATION: $50k → 12%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $59k → 18%WASHINGTON CLEAN ENERGY TESTB: $114k → 9%LEAPFROG DESIGN: $6k → 10%PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY: $40k → 12%U OF W CLEAN ENERGY TESTBEDS: $70k → 9%PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY: $26k → 12%ENERGY RM: $5k → 12%WHEYWARD SPIRIT: $5k → 12%RUTE FOUNDATION SYSTEMS INC: $9k → 12%COMMUNITY ENERGY LABS: $8k → 12%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.
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.

43%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$624k · 5 repeat orgs$830k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
23

Total granted

$624k
$739k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
0%

Still filing today

20%
30%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 18% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $91k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationCommunity ImprovementEnvironmentOther
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

  • OS
    OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
    3× · 2017–2020 · $401k
  • WC
    Washington Clean Technology Alliance
    2× · 2024–2025 · $117k · revenue 0%
  • PS
    PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
    2× · 2020–2021 · $66k

Funded once

  • LF
    LATINO FOUNDERS
    one grant, 2024 · $180k
  • WC
    WASHINGTON CLEAN ENERGY TESTB
    one grant, 2024 · $114k
  • CO
    CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
    one grant, 2017 · $78k
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
Wsu Tech Foundation

To support, assist and promote the interest and welfare of wsu tech and its programs and activities.

Education
2
Oregon Innovation Foundation

To ignite and amplify a culture of creative problem solving and empower the next generation of innovators to meet some of the biggest challenges facing our state.

Science & Tech
3
Oregon Energy Systems Technology and Research
Environment
4
Eastern Oregon University Foundation

Established in 1964 for the philanthropic benefit of Eastern Oregon University, the Foundation raises funds to support the mission of Eastern Oregon University.

Education
5
University of Oregon Foundation

The purpose and mission of the foundation are, acting on its own or through affiliates, to support and assist the university of oregon in its activities by management and administration of foundation assets representing privately donated…

Education
6
Clean Energy Transition Institute

The Clean Energy Transition Institute (CETI) is an independent, nonpartisan research and analysis nonprofit whose mission is to accelerate an equitable clean energy transition in the Northwest.

Education
7
Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences

Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences educates and trains health care professionals emphasizing service among rural and medically under-served communities throughout the Northwest.

Education
8
U of O Foundation Supporting Organization

See schedule othe purpose and mission of the organization is to support and assist the university of oregon foundation in its activities by management and administration of organization assets representing privately donated funds, by…

Education
9
University of Western States

The mission of the University of Western States is to advance the science and art of integrated health care through excellence in education and patient care.

Health
10
Washington State Academy of Sciences

WSAS provides expert scientific and engineering assessments to inform public policy making and works to increase the impact of research in Washington State.

Science & Tech
11
Central Washington University Foundation

In partnership with cwu and our donors, our mission is to transform the lives of current and future generations of students by developing and stewarding resources that provide access, opportunity, and hope.

—
12
Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Foundation Inc Oregon Chapter

The foundation advances science and technology in the united states by providing financial awards to academically outstanding u.s. citizens studying to complete doctoral degrees in science, engineering and medical research.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Washington State University Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Washington Clean Technology Alliance. 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

8 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. 8 of the 29 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
3/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $400,868 · OtherOREGON STATE UNIVERSITYWASHINGTON CLEAN ENERGY TESTB: $113,988 · OtherWASHINGTON CLEAN ENERGY TESTBUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $90,732 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTONCITY OF SPRINGFIELD: $77,500 · OtherCITY OF SPRINGFIELDPORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY: $66,139 · OtherPORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITYPORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $50,000 · Other+16 more: $157,409 · Other+16 moreLATINO FOUNDERS: $180,000 · Community ImprovementLATINO FOUNDERSWashington Clean Technology Alliance: $117,476 · Community ImprovementWashington Clean Technolo…WARM SPRINGS COMMUNITY ACTION TEAM: $25,000 · Community ImprovementWARM SPRINGS COMMUNITY AC…OREGON TECH FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 · EducationOREGON TECH…WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $50,000 · EducationWASHINGTON …Oregon State University Foundation: $50,000 · EducationOregon Stat…Beyond Toxics: $25,000 · Environment
Other$956,636Community Improvement$322,476Education$150,000Environment$25,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWashington Clean Technology Alliance: $117,476 over 2y, 7.2% of budgetPORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetOregon State University Foundation: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWARM SPRINGS COMMUNITY ACTION TEAM: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetBeyond Toxics: $25,000 over 1y, 2.3% 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 LATINO FOUNDERS ↗
  • Who funds Washington Clean Technology Alliance ↗
  • Who funds OREGON TECH FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Oregon State University Foundation ↗
  • Who funds WARM SPRINGS COMMUNITY ACTION TEAM ↗
  • Who funds Beyond Toxics ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

The Oregon Community …
The Oregon Community FoundationOR12.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Oregon Community 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 VertueLab funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from VertueLab. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • Beyond Toxics: 15% of income from government
  • Warm Springs Community Action Team: 3% of income from government
  • Portland State University Foundation: 0% of income from government
  • Oregon State University Foundation: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
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 29 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on VertueLab’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