Skip to content

· Public charity

Api Chaya

API CHAYA empowers survivors of gender-based violence and human trafficking to gain safety, connection, and wellness.

$958k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$45k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Community Improvement$245kCivil Rights$96kHealth$65kArts & Culture$5k
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $84,699, the rows itemized in this filing. The $957,995 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $873,296 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$44,699
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WHITE CENTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION$44,699
MULTI COMMUNITIES$40,000
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 (FY18–19, $26k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%UTOPIA: $15k → 9%UTOPIA: $11k → 9%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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$268k · 3 repeat orgs$129k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +459% since the first grant, against +156% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
7

Total granted

$268k
$84k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+459%
+156%

Still filing today

100%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 47% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $45k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’21’22’23’24
Community ImprovementHuman ServicesArts & CultureHealthEnvironmentOther
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

  • RVC SEATTLE
    3× · 2018–2021 · $177k · revenue +459%
  • M
    MULTI-COMMUNITIES
    2× · 2022–2024 · $65k · revenue +61%
  • UT
    UNITED TERRITORIES OF PACIFIC ISLANDERS WASHINGTON-UTOPIA WA
    2× · 2018–2019 · $26k · revenue ×14

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
    one grant, 2018 · $15k
  • GC
    GAY CITY HEALTH PROJECTgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $15k · revenue +156%
  • MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER
    one grant, 2023 · $15k · revenue -32%
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
Queer Power Alliance

Queer Power Alliance is rooted in the LGBTQIA+ community and in solidarity with other marginalized communities. We strive for equity by disrupting systems of oppression holding back LGBTQIA+ communities through advocating, educating,…

Human Services
2
Washington Indian Civil Rights Commission

Washington Indian Civil Rights Commission is led by and for Indigenous people, and envisions a just society in which we are treated with honor, fairness and respect. Our mission is to uphold our individual civil rights through education…

Human Services
3
Gender Justice League

Gender Justice League's mission is to empower all people to eliminate discrimination and prejudice based on sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation in Washington State, and to ensure that trans and gender diverse…

Civil Rights
4
Northwest Network Btlg Survivors Abuse0

The Northwest Network of Bisexual Trans Lesbians and Gay Survivors of Abuse supports queer and trans survivors in reconnecting to their self-determination through advocacy-based counseling and community education.

Health
5
Washington Ethnic Studies Now

Washington Ethnic Studies Now WAESN is a multigenerational majority POC-led nonprofit advancing Ethnic Studies and racial justice in Washington. We center people of color build youth-centered leadership and learning and organize…

Education
6
Washington Community Alliance

Washington Community Alliance WCA is a statewide network of over 70 organizations working to advance multiracial social democracy by coordinating values aligned civic engagement

Civil Rights
7
Rainbow Center

Through education advocacy and celebration The Rainbow Center expands resources and safe space for lesbian gay bisexual transgender queer and allied community.

Civil Rights
8
Greater Seattle Business Association

To combine business development, leadership and social action to expand economic opportunities for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community and those who support equality for all.

Community Improvement
9
Rainier Beach Cummunity Empowerment Coalition

Rainier Beach Action Coalition is a grassroot, Black-led organization devoted to locally driven development. It promotes quality education, living wage jobs, affordable transportation and housing, and building community capacity in…

Community Improvement
10
Lavender Rights Project

Lavender Rights Project elevates the power, autonomy, and leadership of the black intersex & gender diverse community through intersectional legal and social services. We utilize the law as an organizing principle to affirm our civil…

Crime & Legal
11
Working Washington

We are workers, united across different industries to improve our working conditions and our lives. We come together as working people to build power through education, organizing, and enforcement. We work to raise and uphold standards in…

—
12
Movimiento Afrolatino Seattle

MAS activates and strengthens communities through art, raising awareness of the history and cultural contributions of Black Latinos for social change and racial equity.

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc; the most unlike its peers is United Territories of Pacific Islanders Washington-Utopia Wa. 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

9 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. 9 of the 12 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RVC SEATTLE: $177,211 · Community ImprovementRVC SEATTLEWHITE CENTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION: $44,699 · Community ImprovementWHITE CENTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATIONMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER: $15,000 · Community ImprovementMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTERMULTI-COMMUNITIES: $65,000 · HealthMULTI-COMMUNITIESUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $15,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY O…INTERFAITH WORKING GROUP: $13,000 · OtherINTERFAITH W…QUEER THE LAND LLC: $12,750 · OtherQUEER THE LA…STORY TWO DESIGN COOPERATIVE: $5,000 · OtherSTORY TWO DE…UNITED TERRITORIES OF PACIFIC ISLANDERS WASHINGTON-UTOPIA WA: $25,500 · Human ServicesGAY CITY HEALTH PROJECT: $15,000 · Arts & CultureThe Pride Foundation: $15,000 · Civil RightsSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $8,500 · Environment
Community Improvement$236,910Health$65,000Other$45,750Human Services$25,500Arts & Culture$15,000Civil Rights$15,000Environment$8,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRVC SEATTLE: $177,211 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetMULTI-COMMUNITIES: $65,000 over 2y, 6.0% of budgetWHITE CENTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION: $44,699 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetUNITED TERRITORIES OF PACIFIC ISLANDERS WASHINGTON-UTOPIA WA: $25,500 over 2y, 5.5% of budgetGAY CITY HEALTH PROJECT: $15,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetThe Pride Foundation: $15,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetINTERFAITH WORKING GROUP: $13,000 over 1y, 8.9% of budgetSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $8,500 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

Seattle FoundationWA14.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Seattle Foundation · The Pride Foundation · Philanthropy Northwest · Artsfund · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Api Chaya funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Api Chaya. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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
    6report 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Api Chaya?

    Find your warmest path to Api Chaya 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.

    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 12 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Api Chaya’s filings →

    More from the funding graph