· Private foundation
Angelica 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THRESHOLD FOUNDATION | $3,534 |
| VARIOUS UNDER 1000 | $160 |
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 19% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 31% of Angelica Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +50% since the first grant, against +19% for the ones you funded once.
11 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- TFTHRESHOLD FOUNDATION6× · 2018–2024 · $194k · revenue +18%
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE5× · 2017–2023 · $52k · revenue +65%- CDCENTRO DE LOS DERECHOS DEL MIGRANTE INC3× · 2017–2019 · $30k · revenue +263%
Funded once
- CTCOUNCIL TO INNOVATE - HISPANICS IN PHILANTHROPYone grant, 2021 · $25k
- BNBorder Network for Human Rightsgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $20k · revenue +85%
- FIFLAGSTAFF INTERNATIONAL RELIEF EFFORTone grant, 2022 · $18k · revenue -33%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
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.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
The Guernica Centre for International Justice represents the interests of victims in national and international legal proceedings, putting in place transnational accountability strategies that seek to maximize the protection of victims'…
Cvnm education fund is a statewide, nonpartisan nonprofit committed to engaging the people of new mexico in our long-standing shared values of protecting our air, land, water, and the health of our communities. we do this by mobilizing…
Guided by artists, rooted in new mexico, site santa fe celebrates contemporary creative expression.
To investigate, research, write, publish, present conferences and teach with respect to global, regional, transboundary, and comparative environmental issues and to make the findings from such activities available to the general public; to…
Nature and culture international conserves biologically diverse landscapes in latin america, in concert with local cultures, for the well-being of the planet.
Cuenca los ojos works to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the us/mexican borderlands through land protection, habitat restoration and wildlife reintroduction.
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…
The water protector legal collective is an indigenous-led legal nonprofit that provides support and advocacy for indigenous peoples and original nations, the earth, and climate justice movements.
The purpose of rainforest foundation us is to support indigenous peoples and forest communities in their efforts to secure their lands, protect their environment, and uphold their rights.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Centro De Los Derechos Del Migrante Inc and the most unlike its peers is Ukraine Relief Fund Inc. 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.
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 32 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
33 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 33 of the 46 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.
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THRESHOLD FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE ↗
- Who funds CENTRO DE LOS DERECHOS DEL MIGRANTE INC ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL EXCHANGE ↗
- Who funds Border Network for Human Rights ↗
- Who funds FLAGSTAFF INTERNATIONAL RELIEF EFFORT (FIRE) ↗
- Who funds Rainforest Action Network ↗
- Who funds VIA INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds YANSA INC ↗
- Who funds NEW MEXICO WILDERNESS ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR CIVIC POLICY ↗
- Who funds American Civil Liberties Union of Texas Inc ↗
- Who funds SOMOS UN PUEBLO UNIDO ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON OFFICE ON LATIN AMERICA ↗
- Who funds SANTA FE ART INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds PROTEUS FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Ukraine Relief Fund Inc ↗
- Who funds SANTA FE WATERSHED ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds ST VINCENT HOSPITAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WILDEARTH GUARDIANS ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds NORTHEAST VALLEY HEALTH CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds EXODUS ENSEMBLE ↗
- Who funds NEW MEXICO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SANTA FE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Threshold Foundation · Albuquerque Community Foundation · Santa Fe Community Foundation · The Ford Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Livingry Foundation · Tides Foundation · Marshall L and Perrine D McCune Charitable Foundation Inc · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Brindle Foundation · NEO Philanthropy Inc · American Endowment Foundation
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 organization Angelica 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.
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- Centro De Los Derechos Del Migrante Inc — 4% of income from government
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 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Angelica Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Angelica 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.