· Public charity
Drug Policy Action
DRUG POLICY ACTION seeks to reform federal, state, and local drug policies.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE | $6,600,000 |
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 (FY23–24, $181k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, 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.
5 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.
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 FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- DPDRUG POLICY ALLIANCE7× · 2019–2025 · $35M · revenue -54% · 67% of their budget
- IPINITIATIVE PETITION COMMITTEE NO 442× · 2020–2021 · $2.1M
- MPMARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT2× · 2017–2023 · $523k · revenue -78%
Funded once
- MTMORE TREATMENT FOR A BETTER OREGON YES TO 110one grant, 2021 · $2.4M
- CTCOMMIT TO CHANGE WAone grant, 2022 · $150k
- UOUNITE OREGON ACTIONone grant, 2024 · $145k · revenue -91%
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.
Greater Spokane Action (GSA) is the political arm of Greater Spokane Progress (GSP), reshaping politics by educating, advocating and mobilizing to establish and strengthen equitable and progressive policies in our community.
California latinas for reproductive justice (clrj) is a statewide organization committed to honoring the experiences of latinas to uphold our dignity, our bodies, sexuality, and families. we build latinas' power and cultivate leadership…
Center for intercultural organizing dba unite oregon is a diverse, grassroots organization working to build a multicultural movement for immigrant and refugee rights through education, civic engagement, community organizing and…
Advocacy of policies to support Nebraskans.
Transforming the narrative of criminalization: an abolitionist approach. ending the reliance on the private prison industry decarceration: advocating for policies that reduce the prison population, such as bail reform and funding…
Non-PartisanVoter Educ Advocacy
Latino network action fund seeks to create a more representative democracy in oregon.
Promote the advancement of minority civic rights through education and empowerment and bringing a voice to the issues that uniquely impact communities of color.
Advocate for housing rights and a ballot initiative in Denver, Colorado.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Latino Network and the most unlike its peers is New Approach Montana. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
15 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. 15 of the 35 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 DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT ↗
- Who funds UNITE OREGON ACTION ↗
- Who funds Ground Game Texas ↗
- Who funds IMAGINE BLACK ↗
- Who funds Latino Network ↗
- Who funds URBAN LEAGUE OF PORTLAND INC ↗
- Who funds Ground Game Fund ↗
- Who funds RECOVERY ADVOCACY PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds SAFETY AND JUSTICE OREGON ↗
- Who funds New Approach Montana ↗
- Who funds NJ CAN 2020 INC ↗
- Who funds Act 4 SA Action Fund ↗
- Who funds Somos Tejas ↗
- Who funds NEW DAY NEVADA ↗
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: Open Society Action Fund Inc · Northwest Health 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 Drug Policy Action 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Urban League of Portland Inc — 33% of income from government
- Latino Network — 15% 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 Drug Policy Action?
Find your warmest path to Drug Policy Action 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.