· Public charity
Archewell Foundation
The ARCHEWELL FOUNDATION is a non-profit organization created by prince harry and meghan, the duke and duchess of sussex.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 22 grants below total $910,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,256,565 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $346,565 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k17 grants · $435k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $475k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SCREEN SANITY | $150,000 |
| NAACP EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS INC | $125,000 |
| HOPELAB FOUNDATION INC | $100,000 |
| THE GEANCO FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| #HALFTHESTORY | $50,000 |
| MOZAIC | $27,500 |
| REFUGEE WOMEN'S NETWORK | $27,500 |
| NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR | $27,500 |
| NEW AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MASSACHUSETTS | $27,500 |
| MILWAUKEE MUSLIM WOMEN'S COALITION | $27,500 |
| ARTOGETHER | $27,500 |
| CULTURINGUA | $27,500 |
| SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENT ENTREPRENEURS (FISCAL SPONSOR FOR MIRY'S LIST) | $27,500 |
| WOMEN FOR AFGHAN WOMEN | $27,500 |
| ALIGHT | $27,500 |
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 (FY21–24, $760k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 60% 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
Grants abroad, by region — $277k on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 3 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: TO FIGHT FOR SYSTEMIC CHANGE THAT ENSURES THE DIGITAL WORLD CATERS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE BY DESIGN AND DEFAULT. · TO CREATE A LANDING PAGE WITH INFORMATION ON ONLINE SAFETY ADVICE FOR PARENTS AND YOUNG PEOPLE. · TO SUPPORT AND INCREASE AWARENESS OF THE YOUNG CHAMPIONS PROGRAMME
Stated purpose: TO BUILD AND REFURBISH BASKETBALL COURTS IN ABUJA, NIGERIA. · TO BUILD COMMUNITY FOR REFUGEES IN THE WELCOME PROJECT
Stated purpose: TO EDUCATE, TRAIN, AND ADVOCATE FOR YOUTH AND VULNERABLE GROUPS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 9% of Archewell 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. Read by recipient address, 21% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 16% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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 +5% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
16 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 7 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, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $310k 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
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY2× · 2021–2022 · $225k · revenue +34%
Hopelab Foundation Inc2× · 2022–2024 · $200k · revenue +134%
GIRLS WHO CODE INC2× · 2021–2022 · $115k · revenue +5%
Funded once
WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INCgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $300k · revenue +167%- TRTEAM RUBICON INCone grant, 2021 · $250k · revenue +18%
- WWWOMEN'S WELLNESS SPAone grant, 2023 · $250k
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.
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 open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
Women donors network advances a just, equitable, and sustainable world through the power of philanthropy, women's leadership, and collective and individual action.
The missions is to provide information and resources to counter disinformation, propaganda, and offer a window to trusted content about the events that are going on in the Middle East.
Women deliver is a global feminist advocacy organization with a clear mission: to ensure that every self-identifying girl and woman has control over her body and life. see organization's full mission statement in schedule o.
The global entrepreneurship network operates programs in 180 countries aimed at making it easier for anyone, anywhere to start and scale a business. by fostering deeper cross-border collaboration between entrepreneurs, researchers,…
Our mission as a global alliance is to provide strategies, research, and resources that support the critical agency and influence of women's foundations and gender justice funders in the movement for equality, justice, and power for all.
The fuller project is the global newsroom dedicated to groundbreaking reporting that catalyzes positive change for women.
The global impact investing network, inc. is dedicated to increasing the scale and effectiveness of impact investing to solve systemic problems facing people and the planet. impact investments are investments made into companies,…
Water.org's goal is to bring safe water and sanitation to the world through access to small, affordable loans.
Partnersglobal (partners) works through a global network to support local leaders and create partnerships that transform conflict, strengthen democratic institutions, and achieve sustainable development.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Girls Who Code Inc and the most unlike its peers is Hopelab Foundation 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 19 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) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
63 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. 63 of the 65 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 NAACP EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds OMPRAKASH INC ↗
- Who funds TEAM RUBICON INC ↗
- Who funds ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds WOMEN'S WELLNESS SPA(CE) ↗
- Who funds UCLA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds Hopelab Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds KABOOM INC ↗
- Who funds SCREEN SANITY INC ↗
- Who funds HUMAN FIRST COALITION ↗
- Who funds COLOROFCHANGEORG ↗
- Who funds GIRLS WHO CODE INC ↗
- Who funds CORTICO CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds THE HALO TRUST (USA) INC ↗
- Who funds HOPEWELL FUND ↗
- Who funds The Markup News Inc ↗
- Who funds EQUIMUNDO CENTER FOR MASCULINITIES AND SOCIAL JUS ↗
- Who funds SHELTER MINISTRIES OF DALLAS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC ↗
- Who funds Women for Afghan Women Inc ↗
- Who funds ParentsTogether Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE GEANCO FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CHARITIES AID FOUNDATION AMERICA ↗
- Who funds NEW AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MASSACHUSETTS INC ↗
- Who funds MOZAIC ↗
- Who funds Minas List Inc ↗
- Who funds NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR INC ↗
- Who funds ARTogether ↗
- Who funds CULTURINGUA ↗
- Who funds REFUGEE WOMENS NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds WellBeing International Inc ↗
- Who funds HIAS INC ↗
- Who funds THE LOVELAND FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds GIRLS INC ↗
- Who funds HALFTHESTORY ↗
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: Gofundmeorg · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Foundation to Promote Open Society · Globalgiving Foundation Inc · Tides Foundation · Social Impact Fund · New Venture Fund · Impactassetsinc · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · The Ford Foundation · Jewish Communal Fund
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 Archewell 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.
- Hias Inc — 88% of income from government
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- New American Association of Massachusetts Inc — 12% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Cortico Corporation — 0% 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 Archewell Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Archewell 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.