· Public charity
Virginia Biotechnology Research Park Activation Capital
Virginia biotechnology research park (the activation council), as an anchor for the knowledge-based community , will provide the leadership and vision to the richmond regional innovation ecosystem with a willingness to invent, take and manage risks, and share credit for success.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 100% of VIRGINIA BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH PARK ACTIVATION CAPITAL’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| TRIBAJA LLC | $35,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $20,000 |
| LIPLOVELINE LLC | $20,000 |
| NESSLE LLC | $20,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $20,000 |
| HOTH INTELLIGENCE INC | $20,000 |
| LLAMAWOOD INC | $20,000 |
| ATHYTIC | $20,000 |
| WOURLD INC | $20,000 |
| MEDOVATE TECHNOLOGIES INC | $20,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $20,000 |
| PEGASUS ADMIN LLC | $20,000 |
| VIORA HEALTH INC | $20,000 |
| BLOOMRAIL | $20,000 |
| ALTALITY INC | $20,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 51% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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
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.
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.
10 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2022, 10 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2022, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $315k went to new ones.
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
- KIKAMANA INC2× · 2019–2020 · $29k
- TSTOTEM SYSTEMS INC2× · 2019–2020 · $20k
- PVPEERSPECTIVE VR2× · 2019–2020 · $20k
Funded once
- BXBOLD XCHANGEone grant, 2021 · $30k
- SDSUNNY DAY FUNDone grant, 2021 · $25k
- GLGRANTABLE LLCone grant, 2021 · $25k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
0 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2022.
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 2017–2022, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 0 of the 73 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
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Virginia Innovation Partnership Corporation
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.