Skip to content
Wrethinking the Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Wrethinking the Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$629k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$470k
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, FY2019 to 2024.

Science & Tech$1.5MCommunity Improvement$1.4MEducation$1.3MSocial Science$100kYouth Development$40kArts & Culture$40kFood & Nutrition$10kHuman Services$10k
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $19k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $50k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $90k
  • $250k+1 grant · $470k
$10,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$8.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
INTERNET SAFETY LABS INC$470,000
INTERNET SAFETY LABS INC$90,000
ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY$20,000
SAN DIEGO YOUTH SYMPHONY$10,000
U C SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION$10,000
GIRL SCOUTS SAN DIEGO-IMPERIAL COUNCIL INC$10,000
WIRELESS HISTORY FOUNDATION$9,000
GIRL SCOUTS SAN DIEGO-IMPERIAL COUNCIL INC$5,000
DEL MAR COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS$5,000
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.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY22–24, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%DEL MAR COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: $5k → 11%DEL MAR COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: $5k → 11%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.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.7M · 9 repeat orgs$660k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
4

Total granted

$3.7M
$660k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+29%
+133%

Still filing today

89%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationPublic BenefitSocial ScienceYouth DevelopmentArts & CultureFood & NutritionOther
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

  • US
    UC SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +61%
  • II
    Illinois Institute of Technology
    3× · 2021–2024 · $60k · revenue +13%
  • GS
    GIRL SCOUTS SAN DIEGO-IMPERIAL COUNCIL INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $40k · revenue +31%

Funded once

  • IE
    INNOVATIVE ENGINEERING CONSORTIUMgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $540k · revenue ×430
  • DN
    DON NORMAN DESIGN AWARDgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $100k · revenue +74% · 44% of their budget
  • P
    ProduceGoodgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +133%
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
Sport Innovators

To establish San Diego and Southern California as the core of the healthy living, sports and active lifestyle community. Through supporting companies at all stages, we help create jobs, but not just any jobs, jobs that make our city and…

Philanthropy
2
Connect Foundation

Connect is an innovation instigator established to cultivate san diego's life science and tech communities. a trusted partner for more than 30 years, we propel our region's entrepreneurs as they create and scale their companies from…

Education
3
Initiative for Digital Engineering and Life Sciences
—
4
San Diego Regional Economic Development Foundation

To support and cultivate sustainable employment opportunities for San Diego County residents contributing to a prosperous local economy.

Community Improvement
5
Design Museum Foundation Inc

To inspire social change through the transformative power of design through public programming, education initiatives,and publications.

Arts & Culture
6
Cleantech San Diego Association

To accelerate clean technology innovation and promote the equitable deployment of sustainable solutions across the san diego region for the benefit of the economy, the environment, and all members of the community.

Community Improvement
7
Policy & Innovation Center

The policy & innovation center's (pic) mission is to unlock the region's potential by cultivating and building partnerships. our niche is to address intractable issues that can only be solved with cross-sector, multi-jurisdictional…

Philanthropy
8
Silicon Valley Defense Working Group Co

Silicon Valley Defense Group convenes experts in technology, investment, and government for discussions on how to better collaborate between the various groups. The comments and topics are then published on our website to help educate and…

Education
9
Institute for Applied Tinkering

Institute for Applied Tinkering IAT develops, practices and shares educational methods that challenge and support all children to engage deeply in their learning via real interests and real tools.

Youth Development
10
International Society for Arts Science and Technology Dba LeonardoISAST

The mission of the Organization is to identify new avenues to serve the art, science, and technology community. The Organization is recognized as a global leader in the interdisciplinary world of art, science, and technology. For over 50…

—
11
Schmidt Ocean Institute
Science & Tech
12
San Diego Squared

To advance workforce and talent development within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics ("STEM") sectors by fostering excellence in education, expanding access to opportunities, and delivering transformative resources to…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Uc San Diego Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Innovative Engineering Consortium. 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

13 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. 13 of the 14 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
10/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UC SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION: $1,255,000 · EducationUC SAN DIEGO FOUNDATIONINNOVATIVE ENGINEERING CONSORTIUM: $540,000 · EducationINNOVATIVE ENGINEERING CONSORTIUM+2 more: $90,000 · EducationME2B ALLIANCE INC: $1,250,000 · OtherME2B ALLIANCE INC+4 more: $60,000 · OtherInternet Safety Labs: $960,000 · Public BenefitInternet Safety LabsDESIGN FORWARD ALLIANCE: $150,000 · Community ImprovementDON NORMAN DESIGN AWARD: $100,000 · Social ScienceGIRL SCOUTS SAN DIEGO-IMPERIAL COUNCIL INC: $40,000 · Youth DevelopmentWireless History Foundation: $17,500 · Arts & Culture
Education$1,885,000Other$1,310,000Public Benefit$960,000Community Improvement$150,000Social Science$100,000Youth Development$40,000Arts & Culture$17,500

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 budgetUC SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION: $1,255,000 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetInternet Safety Labs: $960,000 over 2y, 72% of budgetDESIGN FORWARD ALLIANCE: $150,000 over 1y, 27% of budgetDON NORMAN DESIGN AWARD: $100,000 over 1y, 44% of budgetIllinois Institute of Technology: $60,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS SAN DIEGO-IMPERIAL COUNCIL INC: $40,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetOCEAN DISCOVERY INSTITUTE: $30,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetSAN DIEGO YOUTH SYMPHONY & CONSERVATORY: $30,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetWireless History Foundation: $17,500 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetProduceGood: $10,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetDEL MAR COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS DMCC: $10,000 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetCinequest Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% 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.

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.

The Conrad Prebys Fou…Sempra FoundationThe Cushman FoundationJewish Community Foun…The San Diego Foundat…Morgan Stanley Global…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Conrad Prebys FoundationCA15.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Conrad Prebys Foundation · Sempra Foundation · The Cushman Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of San Diego · The San Diego Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Wrethinking the Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Wrethinking the Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely 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.

    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 14 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 Wrethinking the Foundation’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