· Private foundation
Arch Community Fund
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 FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k3 grants · $6k
- $10k–50k16 grants · $470k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PEACE AND JUSTICE ACTION LEAGUE OF SPOKANE | $35,000 |
| WE ARE FAMILY | $35,000 |
| BEYOND TRENCHES INC | $35,000 |
| JUSTICE CREAM COLLECTIVE | $35,000 |
| BELOVED COMMUNITY INCUBATOR INC | $35,000 |
| UNITED WORKERS ASSOCIATION INC | $35,000 |
| NYTAG INC | $35,000 |
| STRUGGLE FOR MIAMIS AFFORDABLE AND SUSTAINABLE HOU | $30,000 |
| COMMON ROOTS | $30,000 |
| ABOUT FACE VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR | $30,000 |
| LIVELIHOODS KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE NETWORK INC | $25,000 |
| EMBODIMENT INSTITUTE INCORPORATED | $25,000 |
| BUILDERS OF THE HIGHWAY FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| CENTER FOR THIRD WORLD ORGANIZING | $25,000 |
| TIDES FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY19–24, $246k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 82% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
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 +36% since the first grant, against +5% for the ones you funded once.
37 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2024, 24 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
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, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $51k 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
- CRCritical Resistance6× · 2018–2023 · $155k · revenue +46%
Chinese for Affirmative Action5× · 2019–2023 · $120k · revenue +235%- HTHealing to Action5× · 2019–2023 · $110k · revenue +524%
Funded once
RIGHT TO THE CITY ALLIANCEone grant, 2020 · $50k · revenue -3%- NNNATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS - ACCESS REPRODone grant, 2022 · $50k
- TCThe Center for Media Justice DBA MediaJusticegraduatedone grant, 2018 · $25k · revenue +35%
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.
A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…
Forward Together is a national reproductive justice organization that centers people, families, and communities who experience reproductive oppression. They prioritize queer, trans, Black, Indigenous, and other peoples of color and utilize…
Connecting and amplifying the power of individuals to build a just, equitable, and inclusive city.
Communities Rise fosters movements to build power in communities impacted by systemic oppression. To create an equitable system, we pursue cross-sector collaboration, and provide capacity building and legal services for community…
Fuerza Laboral is a workers' rights center whose mission is to shift the balance of power in our economy in favor of workers by educating, training, and organizing workers to become community leaders; taking direct action to recover unpaid…
Workers Rights
AMOR is an alliance of community based grassroots organizations mobilizing at the intersections of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and immigration status to prevent, to respond to, and to end state violence against our community.
Advance democracy, equity, and self-determination in U.S. territories through participatory advocacy, narrative and cultural change, and ecosystem building.
Detention Watch Network seeks to end the cruel system of immigration detention via programs of grassroots organizing, strategic communications, and collective advocacy.
Oregon Justice Network is an alliance built and staffed by criminal legal system impacted people advocating for the well-being of people affected or at-risk of being affected by carceral systems. Our work centers around restorative…
We activate community power to redesign social systems to be just and equitable for all through (1) developing and supporting leaders and organizations and (2) leading campaigns, coalitions, and innovative initiatives.
The Black Organizing Project is a Black, member-led community organization working for racial, social, and economic justice through grassroots organizing and community building across the Bay Area.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Center for Transformative Action and 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.
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 17 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
77 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. 77 of the 83 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 Critical Resistance ↗
- Who funds Chinese for Affirmative Action ↗
- Who funds Healing to Action ↗
- Who funds PEACE & JUSTICE ACTION LEAGUE OF SPOKANE ↗
- Who funds INQUIRING SYSTEMS INC ↗
- Who funds PILIPINO WORKERS CENTER OF SOUTHERN ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE ACTION ↗
- Who funds GEORGIA WAND EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds Communities United for People ↗
- Who funds UNITED WE DREAM NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds RURAL ORGANIZING PROJECT ↗
- Who funds LIVELIHOODS KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BEYOND TRENCHES INC ↗
- Who funds Anti Police-Terror Project Inc ↗
- Who funds Affect Real Change Inc ↗
- Who funds United Workers Association Inc ↗
- Who funds WE ARE FAMILY ↗
- Who funds BELOVED COMMUNITY INCUBATOR INC ↗
- Who funds NYTAG INC New York Transgender Advocacy Group ↗
- Who funds JUSTICE CREAM COLLECTIVE ↗
- Who funds Builders of The Highway Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds COMMON ROOTS ↗
- Who funds RIGHT TO THE CITY ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Struggle for Miamis Affordable and Sustainable Housing Incorporated ↗
- Who funds Latino Community Fund of Washington State ↗
- Who funds ABOUT FACE VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR ↗
- Who funds MOMENTUM ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Justice Funders ↗
- Who funds THE AUDRE LORDE PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds Workers Center For Racial Just NFP ↗
- Who funds PROVIDENCE YOUTH STUDENT MOVEMENT ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY ASSET DEVELOPMENT RE-DEFINING EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN COMMUNITIES TOGETHER INC ↗
- Who funds Got Green ↗
- Who funds FAMILIES FOR FREEDOM INC ↗
- Who funds ALLIED MEDIA PROJECTS INC ↗
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: Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Proteus Fund Inc · Borealis Philanthropy · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Tides Foundation · Solidaire Network Inc · Common Counsel Foundation · Groundswell Fund · New Venture Fund · Impactassetsinc · Social Justice Fund Northwest · Tides Center
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 Arch Community Fund 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.
- Center for Intercultural Organizing — 28% 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 Arch Community Fund?
Find your warmest path to Arch Community Fund 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.