· Public charity
First Focus
Bipartisan advocacy organization dedicated to making children and families the priority in federal policy and budget decisions.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2019.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2019
- $10k–50k4 grants · $80k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $200k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Idaho Voices for Children | $200,000 |
| Voices for Illinois Children | $20,000 |
| Child and Family Policy Center | $20,000 |
| Childrens Advocacy Alliance | $20,000 |
| Voices for Ohios Children | $20,000 |
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 (FY17–19, $138k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 93% 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.
8 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2019, 6 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (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 FY2019, 14% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $240k 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
- TCTexans Care For Children Inc3× · 2017–2019 · $50k · revenue +260%
- VFVOICES FOR GEORGIA'S CHILDREN INC3× · 2017–2019 · $38k · revenue +149%
- VFVOICES FOR VIRGINIA'S CHILDREN3× · 2017–2019 · $38k · revenue +12%
Funded once
- TNTrue North Group2× · 2018–2019 · $30k
- FCFOSTERADOPT CONNECT INCgraduated2× · 2018–2019 · $20k · revenue +187%
- HCHAWAII CHILDREN'S ACTION NETWORKgraduated2× · 2018–2019 · $20k · revenue +682%
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.
Our children oregon's mission is to be a voice and force for the common good for all oregon children, ensuring all children have the resources and opportunities they need to reach their full potential. we elevate data and the voices of…
The Minnesota Children's Alliance leads the development and growth of locally based children's advocacy centers and multidisciplinary teams to ensure equitable access to services for healing and growth.
Advocating for the development and implementation of data-driven public policy that improves child well-being in arkansas, with a focus on economic security, education, health, early childhood, child welfare, juvenile justice, and racial…
Dedicated to strengthening the multi-disciplinary response to child abuse. We strive to ensure that professionals throughout Alaska are equipped to do the best job possible at holding offenders accountable and helping children and families…
We provide children affected by violence and their families with services of support, forensic interviews, resources, and hope.
To support the missions of child advocacy centers in colorado to help children and their families heal from abuse and neglect via training, technical assistance, collaboration and strategic partnerships.
California Alliance of Caregivers represents the voices of relative and non-relative caregivers to promote the well-being of children in foster care. California Alliance of Caregivers provides training information support and advocacy for…
To protect and uphold the rights of children when wrongs have been committed against them, to help abused or neglected children have safe permanent homes where they can thrive, to act as a powerful voice in these children's best interests…
Improve the lives of children in illinois by bringing about significant changes in public policies and programs for children through research, policy analysis and advocacy, public education and community outreach.
We are an accredited state chapter of the national children's alliance. as the statewide leader we develop, train and sustain high-quality children's advocacy centers and multi-disciplinary teams.
The center supports and advocates on behalf of children's advocacy centers (cac) and multidisciplinary teams (mdt) statewide. cac's are facility based programs, which utilize an mdt approach (including child protective services, law…
Children's advocacy centers of kentucky, inc. seeks to build relationships at the state and national levels by collaborating with partners which will benefit the work of kentucky child advocacy centers.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Utah Children and the most unlike its peers is Wispirg 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 33 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 6% 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 31 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 IDAHO VOICES FOR CHILDREN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Texans Care For Children Inc ↗
- Who funds VOICES FOR GEORGIA'S CHILDREN INC ↗
- Who funds VOICES FOR VIRGINIA'S CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds CHILD AND FAMILY POLICY CENTER ↗
- Who funds CHILDRENS ACTION ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN FIRST FOR OREGON ↗
- Who funds Voices for Ohios Children ↗
- Who funds KENTUCKY YOUTH ADVOCATES INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCATES FOR CHANGE ↗
- Who funds FOSTERADOPT CONNECT INC ↗
- Who funds HAWAII CHILDREN'S ACTION NETWORK ↗
- Who funds FLORIDA'S CHILDREN FIRST INC ↗
- Who funds JUVENILE LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds MULTI-AGENCY ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN INC ↗
- Who funds Facing Foster Care in Alaska ↗
- Who funds Utah Children ↗
- Who funds Advocates for Children of New York ↗
- Who funds NORTH CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN INC ↗
- Who funds MAINE CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds PENNSYLVANIA PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN NOW ↗
- Who funds SCHUYLER CENTER FOR ANALYSIS AND ADVOCACY INC ↗
- Who funds WISPIRG FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE CHILDREN'S PARTNERSHIP ↗
- Who funds WEST VIRGINIA HEALTHY KIDS AND FAMILIES COALITION ↗
- Who funds COLORADO CHILDREN'S CAMPAIGN ↗
- Who funds NEW MEXICO CHILD ADVOCACY NETWORKS ↗
- Who funds MASSACHUSETTS LAW REFORM INSTITUTE 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: Annie E Casey Foundation Inc · Partnership for Americas Children · Alliance for Early Success Fka Birth to Five Policy Alliance · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · American Heart Association Inc · Center on Budget and Policy Priorities · Georgetown University · New Venture Fund · MAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger · Carequest Foundation Inc · Pritzker Family Foundation · Hopewell 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 First Focus 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 First Focus?
Find your warmest path to First Focus 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.