· Public charity
Aware La
To educate the public about equality issues and advocate for public policies that promote racial justice and equity in California and throughout the country.
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 2 grants below total $318,337 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $328,754 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $10,417 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–50k1 grant · $15k
- $250k+1 grant · $303k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Center for Black Power | $303,020 |
| White People 4 Black Lives | $15,317 |
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 (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 89% of your 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.
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 +53% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 1 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, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k 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
- TATIDES ADVOCACY2× · 2021–2023 · $38k · revenue +18%
- IJINITIATE JUSTICE2× · 2021–2022 · $33k · revenue +59%
- SASOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC2× · 2022–2023 · $17k · revenue +53%
Funded once
- LTLIVING THROUGH GIVING FOUNDATIONone grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue -47%
- NONo on Prop 25- Committee Against Pretrial Racismone grant, 2021 · $45k
- RIRe Imagine LA A Coalition of Nonprofit Orgs and Justice Advocatesone grant, 2021 · $45k
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 Funds mission is to provide sustained support to grassroots organizing projects and movements rooted in the multi-racial working class which rely on their members and constituency to build power in the community.
Dignity and Power Now (DPN) is a Los Angeles based grassroots organization that fights for the dignity and power of all incarcerated people, their families, and communities. DPNs mission is to build a Black and Brown led abolitionist…
The National Legal Advocacy Network d/b/a Grassroots Law & Organizing for Workers is a legal non-profit organization dedicated to using legal strategies as a tool to build power for marginalized workers and create systemic change through…
California Donor Table anchors a hub of donors, foundations, and community leaders. We pool together our resources to shape California into a truly democratic state that works for the people, not the powerful. Rooted in our commitment to…
The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and…
To Build grassroots power to eliminate structural barriers to social and economic opportunities in low-income and disenfranchised communities.
Promote social welfare thru political policy
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…
The California Center for Movement Legal Services (Movement Legal) provides legal services in the pursuit of improving the lives of California's traditionally underserved residents, carrying out legal work that fosters community led policy…
Fund for Justice is a nationally connected social impact research and advocacy organization that works to achieve fundamental, systemic reform by addressing policies and practicies that prevent individuals from reaching their full…
Legal Link removes legal barriers that prolong poverty by adding critically needed capacity to the legal ecosystem.
Detention Watch Network seeks to end the cruel system of immigration detention via programs of grassroots organizing, strategic communications, and collective advocacy.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cangress Dba Los Angeles Community Action Network and the most unlike its peers is National Lawyers Guild of Los Angeles. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 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. 13 of the 16 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 CENTER FOR BLACK POWER ↗
- Who funds NETWORK FOR GOOD ↗
- Who funds LIVING THROUGH GIVING FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Re Imagine LA A Coalition of Nonprofit Orgs and Justice Advocates ↗
- Who funds SHOWING UP FOR RACIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds TIDES ADVOCACY ↗
- Who funds INITIATE JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD OF LOS ANGELES ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC ↗
- Who funds CANGRESS DBA LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK ↗
- Who funds WHITE PEOPLE 4 BLACK LIVES ↗
- Who funds MARCH ON MARYLAND ↗
- Who funds Initiate Justice Action ↗
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: Liberty Hill Foundation · California Community Foundation · Tides Foundation · Common Counsel Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift 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 Aware La 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 Aware La?
Find your warmest path to Aware La 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.