· Public charity
Detention Watch Network
Detention Watch Network seeks to end the cruel system of immigration detention via programs of grassroots organizing, strategic communications, and collective advocacy.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 10 grants below total $155,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $201,359 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $46,359 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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Home is Here NOLA | $20,000 |
| Common Foundation | $15,000 |
| Park Avenue Baptist Church Incorporated | $15,000 |
| First Friends of New Jersey and New York Corporation | $15,000 |
| The Translatin Coalition | $15,000 |
| Alliance for Global Justice | $15,000 |
| Center for Civic Policy | $15,000 |
| Immigrant Services and Legal Advocacy | $15,000 |
| Juntos | $15,000 |
| Minnesota Interfaith Coalition on Immigration Icom | $15,000 |
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 (FY20–24, $135k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 80% 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.
20 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 13 since wound down; 3 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, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k 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
- AAADELANTE ALABAMA WORKER CENTER2× · 2020–2021 · $68k · revenue +25%
Immigration Services and Legal Advocacy3× · 2022–2024 · $47k · revenue +139%- OCOrganized Communities Against Deportations2× · 2021–2022 · $46k · revenue +322%
Funded once
- LULatino Union of Chicagoone grant, 2020 · $21k · revenue -48%
- NANorthwest Alliance for Alternative Media&Educationone grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue -37%
- PYPROVIDENCE YOUTH STUDENT MOVEMENTone grant, 2020 · $17k · revenue -43%
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.
Colectiva Legal del Pueblo is a non-hierarchal collective organization founded for and by undocumented immigrants working to build community leadership and power for migrant justice through legal services, advocacy and education.
Detention Watch Network seeks to end the cruel system of immigration detention via programs of grassroots organizing, strategic communications, and collective advocacy.
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…
Southern California Immigration Project is a public interest nonprofit organization dedicated to providing pro bono legal services to survivors of human and civil rights violations.
Ccij utilizes coordination, advocacy, and legal services to fight for the liberationof immigrants in detention in california. we seek to empower immigrants in detentionand their communities through technical assistance, education, and…
Connect immigrants to legal, social, and interpretation services.
Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef) is a next-generation social justice law firm that defends our immigrant communities against injustices in the immigration system.
Legal, immigration and community organizing
To advance the human & civil rights of immigrants & refugees in los angeles; promote harmonious multi-ethnic human relations.
Ensuring greater access to high-quality low-cost immigration legal services across the United States through local immigrant connection sites across the country. Our sites based in both rural and urban areas are established in…
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.
La Raza Centro Legal San Francisco provides high quality, highly trusted, free legal services to low-income or immigrant clients in the San Francisco Bay Area.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Alliance for Global Justice Corp and the most unlike its peers is Calvary Episcopal Church 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 20 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) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 6% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% 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.
43 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. 43 of the 48 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 Alliance for Global Justice Corp ↗
- Who funds Inland Congregations United for Change Sponsoring Committee Inc ↗
- Who funds ADELANTE ALABAMA WORKER CENTER ↗
- Who funds MALDEF - MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND ↗
- Who funds JUNTOS ↗
- Who funds Immigration Services and Legal Advocacy ↗
- Who funds Organized Communities Against Deportations ↗
- Who funds FREE MIGRATION PROJECT ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE ACTION ↗
- Who funds Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity ↗
- Who funds COMMON Foundation dba Our COMMON Foundation ↗
- Who funds GRASSROOTS LEADERSHIP INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR CIVIC POLICY ↗
- Who funds IMMIGRANT ACTION ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds Minnesota Coalition on Immigration Reform ↗
- Who funds FAMILIES FOR FREEDOM INC ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL GOOD FUND INC ↗
- Who funds EL REFUGIO MINISTRY INC ↗
- Who funds Latino Union of Chicago ↗
- Who funds Northwest Alliance for Alternative Media&Education ↗
- Who funds HOME IS HERE NOLA ↗
- Who funds MIJENTE SUPPORT COMMITTEE ↗
- Who funds PROVIDENCE YOUTH STUDENT MOVEMENT ↗
- Who funds St Louis Inter Faith Committee on Latin America ↗
- Who funds RURAL ORGANIZING PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Circle of Health International ↗
- Who funds FIRST FRIENDS OF NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds THE TRANSLATIN COALITION ↗
- Who funds Got Green ↗
- Who funds DENSHO ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL NETWORK FOR IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds ACLU Foundation of Texas Inc ↗
- Who funds Friends of Miami-Dade College ↗
- Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
- Who funds Calvary Episcopal Church 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: NEO Philanthropy Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Borealis Philanthropy · Proteus Fund Inc · Tides Center · The Heising-Simons Foundation · Tides Foundation · Solidago Foundation · New Venture Fund · The Ford Foundation · Immigrant Legal Resource Center · Groundswell 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 Detention Watch Network 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 Detention Watch Network?
Find your warmest path to Detention Watch Network 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.