Loading…
· Public charity
Foggy Bottom West End Village Inc
Assist residents with supportive services & sponsoring programs to promote health & quality of life.
$710k
Granted FY2024
12
Grants
1
Communities
$79k
Largest
01What you fund
0187% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2019–2024.
Human Services$2.1MFood & Nutrition$211kOther$349k
02FY2024 · 12 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
$50,842
Median grant
1
States reached
$563k
Total assets
Largest grants
- Kingdom Care Senior Village$78,961
- Capitol Hill Village$65,842
- Brookland Village$60,551
- Georgetown Village$56,358
- East Rock Creek Village$50,842
- Dupont Circle Village$50,842
- Cleveland & Woodley Park Village$50,842
- Northwest Neighbors Village$50,842
- Palisades Village$50,841
- Mount Pleasant Village$50,841
- Waterfront Village$50,841
- Glover Park Village$50,000
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 (FY19–24, $1.9M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14% — the area typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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 line in 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, United Way ALICE — 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.
99%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$2.7M · 12 repeat orgs$17k to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +39% since the first grant, against +35% for the ones you funded once.
12 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
12
1
Total granted
$2.7M
$17k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+39%
+35%
Still filing today
92%
100%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Human ServicesFood & NutritionOther
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
- CHCapitol Hill Village5× · 2019–2024 · $253k · revenue +39%
- NNNorthwest Neighbors Village5× · 2019–2024 · $243k · revenue +66%
- GVGeorgetown Village5× · 2019–2024 · $221k · revenue +128%
Funded once
- SMSt Mary's Courtgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $17k · revenue +35%
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
San Francisco Village
San Francisco Village is an innovative membership organization that enables residents to age in their own homes. The Village is dedicated to building community connections for San Francisco residents aged 60 and older, assisted by a robust…
Human Services
2
Arlington Neighborhood Village
To enable older adults to continue living safely, independently, and with an enhanced quality of life in their own homes and communities as they age by providing access to support services and social programs.
Unclassified
3
Senior Citizens Housing Development
Operation of low income housing for the elderly and handicapped, regulated and assisted by the department of housing and urban development (hud).
Housing & Shelter
4
Westside Pacific Villages
Volunteer-driven membership organization committed to supporting older adults with services in Westchester and adjacent areas.
Human Services
5
Council on Aging Services for Seniors
The Council on Aging provides essential services to our senior community through an integrated network of programs working together to fulfill our clients' needs. We currently have 12 programs including: Meals on Wheels, Senior Dining…
—
6
Rolling Green Village
To serve senior adults in an environment based on independence and christian ideals.
—
7
Silver Spring Village Inc
To sustain a robust neighbors-helping-neighbors network that supports older adults who wish to live as independently as possible and be fully engaged in their community as they age.
Human Services
8
Hill View Retirement Center
To operate, manage and maintain a retirement home for the aged providing comprehensive life care and to meet their spiritual, mental, physical and social needs in keeping with the principles established by the united methodist church.
Human Services
9
Chicago Hyde Park Village Nfp
Founded in 2011, the mission of Chicago Hyde Park Village (CHPV) is to create a community of ?neighbors helping neighbors? on the south side of Chicago by providing opportunities for social engagement, educational programs, and…
Community Improvement
10
The Village At Morrisons Cove
To provide medical care and residential living programs and facilities to elderly individuals.
—
11
Pines Village Retirement Communities Inc
The mission of pines village retirement communities, inc. (pvrc) is to celebrate life by enriching the lives of older adults. through local partnerships, we provide older adults in the valparaiso area a network of community choices to live…
Housing & Shelter
12
Bethesda Metro Area Village
Build community for seniors to age in place; support nationwide village movement.
Human Services
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Georgetown Village Inc and the most unlike its peers is St Mary's Court Housing. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network
12 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2024.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
11/12
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Human Services$2,147,052Other$349,054Food & Nutrition$211,442
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 Capitol Hill Village ↗
- Who funds Northwest Neighbors Village ↗
- Who funds Georgetown Village ↗
- Who funds Palisades Village ↗
- Who funds East Rock Creek Village ↗
- Who funds ClevelandWoodley ↗
- Who funds Dupont Circle Village ↗
- Who funds Waterfront Village ↗
- Who funds Mt Pleasant Senior Village ↗
- Who funds Brookland Village ↗
- Who funds Glover Park Village ↗
- Who funds St Mary's Court ↗
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.
Capitol Hill VillageDC24.7× affinity9 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Capitol Hill Village · The Washington Home Inc · Amazonsmile 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 organisation Foggy Bottom West End Village Inc 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
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: Glover Park Village.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
insufficient risk
Limited financial data in public filings.
Track record & reputation
medium risk
4 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 273715646 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on Glover Park Village, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 76% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Foggy Bottom West End Village Inc?
Find your warmest path to Foggy Bottom West End Village Inc through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
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