Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersAlso receives grants — funding profile →
Plinth

· Public charity

Clean and Prosperous America

To accelerate the transition to a net zero carbon economy with prosperity for all

$16M
Granted FY2024still arriving
202
Grants FY2024still arriving
30
States reached
$2.2M
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What you fund
0199% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.

Public Benefit$6.7MEnvironment$5.5MCivil Rights$3.3MCommunity Improvement$1.0MPublic Safety & Disaster$870kHealth$429kHuman Services$413kEducation$339kOther$0
02FY2024 · 202 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 202 grants below total $15,014,720 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $15,963,891 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $949,171 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 $10k27 grants · $180k
  • $10k–50k112 grants · $2.3M
  • $50k–250k52 grants · $4.2M
  • $250k+11 grants · $8.3M
$25,000
Median grant
30
States reached
$38k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CAPA PAC$2,235,000
Focus for Democracy Fund$1,100,931
Nebraska Railroaders for Public Safety$870,100
Organizing Empowerment Fund$835,000
Retire Career Politicians$785,000
Sixteen Thirty Fund (Rural Victory Fund)$500,000
Sixteen Thirty Fund (Rural Victory Fund)$500,000
America Votes Education Fund$469,228
Retire Career Politicians$402,400
Global Impact Social Welfare Fund$400,000
Planned Parenthood Votes$250,000
Retire Career Politicians$200,000
Dunn's Democracy Defenders$200,000
Independent Veterans of America PAC$199,000
Ohio Organizing Collaborative$186,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY20–24, $560k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 84% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE ARIZONA: $109k → 11%Student Organizing Inc: $15k → 16%JAKARA MOVEMENT: $20k → 19%MinKwon Center for Community Action: $6k → 13%Hispanic Center of Western Michigan: $50k → 11%PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE: $15k → 15%Harambee House Inc: $50k → 16%GATEWAY COMMUNITY SERVICE MAINE: $5k → 7%NYIC Action (NYS Immigrant Action Fund): $25k → 8%LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE ARIZONA: $8k → 11%LIFTT: $10k → 9%NORTH CAROLINA A PHILIP RANDOLPH EDUCATIONAL FUND: $25k → 8%WorkMoney Foundation: $90k → 17%HEARTLAND WORKERS CENTER: $63k → 12%El Pueblo: $26k → 8%Heartland Workers Center: $24k → 12%Evergreen Action: $20k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

AK
ME
WA
ID
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
IA
OH
PA
NJ
CT
CA
CO
NE
KY
VA
MD
DE
AZ
KS
NC
DC
LA
GA
TX
FL

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

15%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$2.6M · 34 repeat orgs$15M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +49% since the first grant, against +17% for the ones you funded once.

34 repeat relationships — 25 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 154 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

34
76

Total granted

$2.6M
$2.1M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+49%
+17%

Still filing today

88%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 6% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13M went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsEnvironmentPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesEducationOther

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

  • GE
    GOODPOWER EDUCATION FUND INC
    2× · 2020–2024 · $164k · revenue +256%
  • TO
    THE OHIO ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN
    2× · 2022–2023 · $150k · revenue +168%
  • SG
    SOUTHWEST GA PROJECT FOR COMMUNITY EDUCATION INC
    2× · 2020–2022 · $149k · revenue +103%

Funded once

  • LI
    LEADERS IGNITING TRANSFORMATION ACTION FUND INC
    one grant, 2022 · $218k · revenue -2%
  • GN
    Greater New Orleans Housing Alliance
    one grant, 2023 · $131k · revenue -49%
  • EV
    EMERGING VOTERS INC
    one grant, 2022 · $80k · 27% of their budget

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Nextgen Climate Action

Nextgen america empowers young people to engage in the democratic process through voter registration and civic engagement on issues of public policy. this is achieved through innovative digital outreach, communications, and grassroots…

Unclassified
2
Electoral Collective Action

Electoral Collective Action coordinates a broad-based coalition of existing entities active in the climate justice and community organizing space to raise public awareness and educational opportunities.

Civil Rights
3
Electoral Collective

Electoral Collective coordinates a broad-based coalition of existing entities active in the climate justice and community organizing space to raise public awareness and educational opportunities.

Civil Rights
4
Climate Equity Action Fund

The climate equity action fund (ceaf) works hand-in-hand with community-based partners in critical states across the country to secure and sustain policy wins for climate and clean energy. building on over a decade of trust with leading…

Environment
5
Powerswitch Action

Powerswitch action is a national network forging collective democracy and economies in our cities and states, together with our 21 grassroots affiliates.

Community Improvement
6
California Environmental Voters

To increase public awareness of elected officials' performances on environmental issues, to influence decisions of public officials on environmental legislation and policy, and to engage in related social welfare activities to promote and…

Civil Rights
7
Bold Impact

Bold Impact is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting a democracy where all communities get to thrive.

Arts & Culture
8
Wepower

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.

Community Improvement
9
Alabama Values

A nonpartisan grassroots communication organization that works to raise awareness and increase engagement around community issues in alabama by working directly with civic organizations advocating civic participation in communities across…

Arts & Culture
10
Organize for Justice

Organize for justice develops diverse campaign leadership by passing on innovations and relationships from one generation of organizers to the next. the organization strives to create public support on issues affecting working americans.

—
11
Power Coalition for Electoral Justice

We created the power coalition for electoral justice with our partners because this is a moment of opportunity; a time to dig in and become internationally strategic; in short, to use this movement to create a true paradigm shift. to plant…

Civil Rights
12
Partnership for Policy Integrity

Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Organizing Empowerment Fund Inc and the most unlike its peers is Sowega Rising. 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.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyPolicy Research and AdvocacyCommunity FoundationsImmigrant Worker SupportLgbtq+ Community SupportChild Abuse Advocacy Servic…Developmental Disabilities …Affordable Housing Construc…Pregnancy Support ServicesYmca Youth DevelopmentYouth Development ServicesChristian Missionary Organi…Youth Sports ProgramsCommunity FoundationsWomen & Girls Leadership De…Environmental Conservation …
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 10 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%23%<5yr14%27%5–10yr19%23%10–20yr16%16%20–35yr13%11%35–55yr16%1%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%42%<5yr14%22%5–10yr19%27%10–20yr16%4%20–35yr13%5%35–55yr16%0%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 23% of your grantees by number, and just 42% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
2%4/258
the rest of the field
13%
240,395/1,819,307

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.

04the grantee network

222 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. 222 of the 268 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
43
Early backer (in before they grew)
219/222
Grantees still filing
78/222
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

RETIRE CAREER POLITICIANS — $1,387,400 · OtherRETIRE CAREER POLITICIANSNebraska Railroaders for Public Safety — $870,100 · OtherNebraska Railroaders for Public SafetyDunn's Democracy Defenders — $250,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTES — $250,000 · OtherLEADERS IGNITING TRANSFORMATION ACTION FUND INC — $218,250 · Other+77 more — $3,466,332 · Other+77 moreCLEAN AND PROSPEROUS AMERICA — $2,235,000 · EnvironmentCLEAN AND PROSPEROUS AMERICASIXTEEN THIRTY FUND — $1,800,000 · EnvironmentSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND+21 more — $1,061,180 · Environment+21 moreFOCUS FOR DEMOCRACY FUND — $1,100,931 · Civil RightsFOCUS FOR DEMOCRACY FUNDORGANIZING EMPOWERMENT FUND INC — $935,000 · Civil RightsORGANIZING EMPOWERMENT F…America Votes Education Fund — $469,228 · Civil RightsAmerica Votes Education …THE OHIO ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN — $150,000 · Civil Rights+37 more — $1,522,230 · Civil Rights+37 moreGlobal Impact Social Welfare Fund — $400,000 · Public BenefitGlobal Impa…GRASSROOTS ORGANIZING WESTERN WISCONSIN — $199,765 · Public BenefitGRASSROOTS …THE OHIO ORGANIZING COLLABORATIVE — $186,000 · Public BenefitTHE OHIO OR…Center for Common Ground — $179,317 · Public BenefitCenter for …GREATER CLEVELAND CONGREGATIONS INC — $160,000 · Public BenefitGREATER CLE…CENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE ACTION — $136,500 · Public BenefitCENTER FOR …SOUTHERN VISION ALLIANCE — $135,060 · Public BenefitSOUTHERN VI…Greater New Orleans Housing Alliance — $131,200 · Public BenefitGreater New…+13 more — $359,200 · Public Benefit+13 moreLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA — $116,100 · Human ServicesWORKMONEY FOUNDATION INC — $90,000 · Human ServicesHEARTLAND WORKERS CENTER — $86,800 · Human ServicesHarambee House Inc — $50,000 · Human ServicesHISPANIC CENTER OF WESTERN MICHIGAN INC — $50,000 · Human ServicesEL PUEBLO INC — $26,000 · Human ServicesNORTH CAROLINA A PHILIP RANDOLPH EDUCATIONAL FUND — $25,000 · Human ServicesNEW YORK STATE IMMIGRANT ACTION FUND INCORPORATED — $25,000 · Human ServicesJAKARA MOVEMENT — $20,000 · Human ServicesEVERGREEN ACTION — $20,000 · Human Services+2 more — $30,000 · Human ServicesVIRGINIA NEW MAJORITY EDUCATION FUND — $85,000 · EducationRISE ACTION FUND — $82,500 · EducationSAVE OUR SCHOOLS ARIZONA NETWORK — $68,200 · EducationSOUTH GEORGIA VOTERS LEAGUE INC — $63,000 · EducationForward Together Wisconsin — $60,000 · Education1 VOTE COUNTS — $59,719 · EducationNEW NORTH CAROLINA PROJECT — $36,400 · EducationBLUEPRINT NORTH CAROLINA — $26,000 · Education+1 more — $16,000 · EducationWASHINGTON BUSINESS ALLIANCE FUND — $75,000 · Community ImprovementSowega Rising — $61,000 · Community ImprovementNORTH MAIN STREET FUND — $50,000 · Community ImprovementAmerica Votes — $50,000 · Community ImprovementWe Vote We Win — $45,000 · Community ImprovementCENTRO PARA LA RECONSTRUCCION DEL HABITAT — $36,500 · Community ImprovementPENNSYLVANIA STANDS UP INSTITUTE — $31,000 · Community ImprovementASIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL — $26,000 · Community ImprovementVIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC — $25,000 · Community ImprovementOHIO FAMILIES UNITE AGAINST POLICE BRUTALITY — $20,000 · Community ImprovementNORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL — $18,000 · Community Improvement+1 more — $15,000 · Community Improvement
Other$6,442,082Environment$5,096,180Civil Rights$4,177,389Public Benefit$1,887,042Human Services$538,900Education$496,819Community Improvement$452,500

Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetCLEAN AND PROSPEROUS AMERICA — $2,235,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND — $1,800,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetFOCUS FOR DEMOCRACY FUND — $1,100,931 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetORGANIZING EMPOWERMENT FUND INC — $935,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetAmerica Votes Education Fund — $469,228 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetGlobal Impact Social Welfare Fund — $400,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetLEADERS IGNITING TRANSFORMATION ACTION FUND INC — $218,250 over 1y, 6.4% of budgetGRASSROOTS ORGANIZING WESTERN WISCONSIN — $199,765 over 1y, 24% of budgetTHE OHIO ORGANIZING COLLABORATIVE — $186,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetCenter for Common Ground — $179,317 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetGOODPOWER EDUCATION FUND INC — $164,000 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetGREATER CLEVELAND CONGREGATIONS INC — $160,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetTHE OHIO ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN — $150,000 over 2y, 4.6% of budgetSOUTHWEST GA PROJECT FOR COMMUNITY EDUCATION INC — $149,000 over 2y, 7.7% of budgetCENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE ACTION — $136,500 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetSOUTHERN VISION ALLIANCE — $135,060 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetGreater New Orleans Housing Alliance — $131,200 over 1y, 7.7% of budgetLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA — $116,100 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetNETROOTS FOUNDATION — $116,000 over 2y, 22% of budgetMARCH ON — $115,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetCare in Action Inc — $111,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetUNITE HERE ACTION FUND — $100,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND — $100,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCONSERVATION COLORADO EDUCATION FUND — $100,000 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetMICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COALITION — $100,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetONE FAIR WAGE ACTION INC — $98,500 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetBlack Votes Matter Institute of Community Engagement — $95,180 over 2y, 7.0% of budgetMAKE THE ROAD ACTION INC — $94,500 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetWORKMONEY FOUNDATION INC — $90,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetATLANTA GROWING LEADERSHIP OF WOMEN INC — $87,000 over 3y, 25% of budgetHEARTLAND WORKERS CENTER — $86,800 over 2y, 7.7% of budgetVIRGINIA NEW MAJORITY EDUCATION FUND — $85,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetRISE ACTION FUND — $82,500 over 3y, 2.5% of budgetEMERGING VOTERS INC — $79,900 over 1y, 27% of budgetTHE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL — $79,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetLAND STEWARDSHIP ACTION FUND — $75,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetWASHINGTON BUSINESS ALLIANCE FUND — $75,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetSEMBRANDO SENTIDO INC — $74,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetCASA INC — $71,108 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE VOTER PROJECT FUND — $70,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetSAVE OUR SCHOOLS ARIZONA NETWORK — $68,200 over 1y, 8.0% of budgetENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER INC — $67,680 over 2y, 1.8% of budget350 WISCONSIN ACTION INC — $65,000 over 1y, 22% of budgetSowega Rising — $61,000 over 2y, 5.9% of budgetForward Together Wisconsin — $60,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetCAROLINA FEDERATION — $60,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS FOR IDAHO EDUCATION FUND INC — $60,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetLoud Light — $60,000 over 1y, 9.0% of budget
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.

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.

All Hands on Deck Net…Sixteen Thirty FundTides AdvocacyAmerica VotesWindward FundTides FoundationUnited States Energy …Open Society Action F…Way to Win Action Fun…New Venture FundNorth FundAmalgamated Charitabl…
All Hands on Deck Network IncMA100.7× affinity56 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Sixteen Thirty Fund · Tides Advocacy · America Votes · Windward Fund · Tides Foundation · United States Energy Foundation · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · New Venture Fund · North Fund · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc

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 Clean and Prosperous America 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.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 100%6%25%56%100%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 100%
  • Inclusive Prosperity Capital Inc — 100% of income from government
  • Casa Inc — 8% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
10get no government money at all
19report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25

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.

05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Clean and Prosperous America?

Find your warmest path to Clean and Prosperous America 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 268 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines