· Public charity
Artistic Resources in Action Foundation
The organization's purpose is to serve as a charitable org.to which individuals and businesses associated with the music entertainment industry will be encouraged to provide contributions and other support for use in promoting charitable purposes which includes advancement of environmental protection,clean energy,arts,education,social…
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.
The 9 grants below total $70,200 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $354,300 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $284,100 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
- Under $10k7 grants · $48k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $22k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| GREATER GOOD MUSIC | $12,000 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE | $10,000 |
| ACLU FOUNDATION INC | $8,600 |
| PPFA | $8,600 |
| SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE | $7,500 |
| CLEAN WATER FUND | $7,500 |
| FRACK ACTION | $6,000 |
| NUCLEAR WATCH SOUTH | $5,000 |
| SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
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 (FY17–17, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% 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 +35% since the first grant, against +26% for the ones you funded once.
12 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 8 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, 49% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $30k 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
- HCHEAD COUNT INC4× · 2017–2023 · $43k · revenue ×17
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC4× · 2017–2024 · $42k · revenue +12%
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL OF THE USA INC3× · 2018–2022 · $40k · revenue +33%
Funded once
- VLVOTO LATINO FOUNDATION INCgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue +69%
- SHSTOP HANDGUN VIOLENCE INCone grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue -46%
- CFCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITYone grant, 2018 · $9k
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.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
To research and develop centrist policy ideas.
The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.
Psr-la is a physician and health advocate membership organization working to protect public health from nuclear threats and environmental toxins.
Our mission is to fight against fossil fuel executives and industries that have turned our communities into dumping grounds for toxic waste, poisoning our air, water, lan, and bodies. We organize to oppose giant oil refineries, dirty…
To raise awareness about the potential to reduce environmental harm by shifting electricity use to particular times; to encourage the development and spread of common protocols for this practice.
Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.
To build political support for advancing the goals of the natural resources defense council.
Heal utah's mission is to protect utah's environment and its people by promoting clean air, clean energy, and comprehensive solutions to radioactive and toxic waste.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sierra Club Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Savannah River Site Watch. 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 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% 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.
30 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. 30 of the 33 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 HEAD COUNT INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL OF THE USA INC ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds FOOD & WATER WATCH ↗
- Who funds CATSKILL MOUNTAINKEEPER INC ↗
- Who funds CLEAN WATER FUND ↗
- Who funds San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace ↗
- Who funds TEXAS FUND FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds BEYOND NUCLEAR ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND INC ↗
- Who funds THE CIVIC LITERACY AND SERVICE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds VOTO LATINO FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds STOP HANDGUN VIOLENCE INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY ↗
- Who funds Savannah River Site Watch ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds FRACK ACTION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds NATIVE HOPE INC ↗
- Who funds NUCLEAR WATCH SOUTH INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY ↗
- Who funds LEGAL ADVOCATES FOR WASHINGTON SCHOOL Heart of America NW Research Center ↗
- Who funds SWEET RELIEF MUSICIANS FUND ↗
- Who funds Alliance for a Green Economy Inc ↗
- Who funds NEBRASKA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds The Blues Foundation 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: Climate Imperative Foundation · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile 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 Artistic Resources in Action 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.
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 Artistic Resources in Action Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Artistic Resources in Action 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.