Skip to content

· Public charity

Foggy Bottom West End Village Inc

To assist residents of the Foggy Bottom/West End neighborhood who desire to remain independent in their homes as they age by facilitating and coordinating a range of supportive services and by sponsoring programs to promote their health and quality of life.

$710k
Granted FY2024still arriving
12
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$79k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2024.

Human Services$2.7MHousing & Shelter$17k
02FY2024 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $667,603, the rows itemized in this filing. The $709,602 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $41,999 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$50,842
Median grant
1
States reached
$563k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Kingdom Care Senior Village$78,961
Capitol Hill Village$65,842
Brookland Village$60,551
Georgetown Village$56,358
Cleveland & Woodley Park Village$50,842
Dupont Circle Village$50,842
Northwest Neighbors Village$50,842
East Rock Creek Village$50,842
Mount Pleasant Village$50,841
Waterfront Village$50,841
Palisades Village$50,841
Glover Park Village$50,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY19–24, $1.9M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Waterfront Village: $51k → 14%Waterfront Village: $50k → 14%Waterfront Village: $45k → 14%Waterfront Village: $39k → 14%Waterfront Village: $23k → 14%Mount Pleasant Village: $51k → 14%Mount Pleasant Village: $51k → 14%Mount Pleasant Village: $39k → 14%Mount Pleasant Village: $36k → 14%Mt Pleasant Senior Village: $23k → 14%Capitol Hill Village: $66k → 14%Capital Hill Village: $59k → 14%Capital Hill Village: $57k → 14%Capital Hill Village: $48k → 14%Capitol Hill Village: $24k → 14%Palisades Village: $51k → 14%Palisades Village: $50k → 14%Palisades Village: $49k → 14%Palisades Village: $39k → 14%Palisades: $24k → 14%Brookland Village: $61k → 14%Brookland Village: $52k → 14%Brookland Village: $48k → 14%Brookland Village: $39k → 14%Glover Park Village: $50k → 14%Glover Park Village: $46k → 14%Glover Park Village: $43k → 14%Glover Park Village: $28k → 14%Glover Park Village: $21k → 14%East Rock Creek Village: $54k → 14%East Rock Creek Village: $51k → 14%East Rock Creek Village: $50k → 14%East Rock Creek Village: $39k → 14%East Rock Creek Village: $19k → 14%Northwest Neighbors Village: $69k → 14%Northwest Neighbors Village: $60k → 14%Dupont Circle Village: $51k → 14%Northwest Neighbors Village: $51k → 14%Dupont Circle Village: $51k → 14%Dupont Circle Village: $46k → 14%Northwest Neighbors Village: $39k → 14%Dupont Circle Village: $39k → 14%Dupont Circle Village: $24k → 14%Northwest Neighbors Village: $24k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
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.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.7M · 12 repeat orgs$17k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +39% since the first grant, against +38% for those 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%
+38%

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.

50%100%’19’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesFood & NutritionOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • CH
    CAPITOL HILL VILLAGE
    5× · 2019–2024 · $253k · revenue +53%
  • NN
    NORTHWEST NEIGHBORS VILLAGE
    5× · 2019–2024 · $243k · revenue +67%
  • GV
    GEORGETOWN VILLAGE INC
    5× · 2019–2024 · $221k · revenue +88%

Funded once

  • SM
    ST MARY'S COURT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $17k · revenue +38%
How this is measured

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

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. 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
Villages of San Mateo County

We enable seniors to live in their own homes independently, connect with their community, and age with dignity and grace.

Public Benefit
4
Heritage Village Seniors Inc

This corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable purposes. The specific purpose of this…

—
5
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
6
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
7
Southside Senior Citizen Center

Adults day care

Human Services
8
Bethesda Metro Area Village

Build community for seniors to age in place; support nationwide village movement.

Human Services
9
Seabrook Island Village Neighbors Helping Neighbors

Promoting independence of seniors.

Human Services
10
Washington Area Villages Exchange

The Washington Area Villages Exchange (WAVE) brings together nonprofit villages in the wider Washington DC region to learn and grow by sharing experiences and ideas.

Human Services
11
My Glacier Village

My Glacier Village is a local chapter of the Village to Village Network, a national grassroots organization addressing the current and unfolding challenges of aging in this country. We are providing tangible and valuable services to our…

Human Services
12
Capital City Village

Helping people age well at home through a blend of supportive volunteer services, engaging in social informational programs, and referrals to recommended service providers.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Georgetown Village Inc; the most unlike its peers is St Mary's Court Housing Development Corp. 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 tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 12 of the 13 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
11/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CAPITOL HILL VILLAGE: $253,270 · Human ServicesCAPITOL HILL VILLAGENORTHWEST NEIGHBORS VILLAGE: $242,889 · Human ServicesNORTHWEST NEIGHBORS VILLAGEGEORGETOWN VILLAGE INC: $220,671 · Human ServicesGEORGETOWN VILLAGE INCPalisades Village: $212,519 · Human ServicesPalisades VillageEAST ROCK CREEK VILLAGE INC: $211,810 · Human ServicesEAST ROCK CREEK VILLAGE INCDUPONT CIRCLE VILLAGE: $210,431 · Human ServicesDUPONT CIRCLE VILLAGEWATERFRONT VILLAGE INC: $207,633 · Human ServicesWATERFRONT VILLAGE INCMOUNT PLEASANT VILLAGE INC: $199,557 · Human ServicesMOUNT PLEASANT VILLAGE INCGreater Brookland Intergenerational Village: $199,130 · Human ServicesGreater Brookland Intergenerational VillageGLOVER PARK VILLAGE INC: $189,142 · Human ServicesGLOVER PARK VILLAGE INCGREATER FELLOWSHIP MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH: $331,876 · OtherGREATER FELLOW…ST MARY'S COURT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP: $17,178 · OtherCLEVELAND PARK VILLAGE INC: $211,442 · Food & Nutrition
Human Services$2,147,052Other$349,054Food & Nutrition$211,442

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCAPITOL HILL VILLAGE: $253,270 over 5y, 4.4% of budgetNORTHWEST NEIGHBORS VILLAGE: $242,889 over 5y, 20% of budgetGEORGETOWN VILLAGE INC: $220,671 over 5y, 23% of budgetPalisades Village: $212,519 over 5y, 19% of budgetEAST ROCK CREEK VILLAGE INC: $211,810 over 5y, 71% of budgetCLEVELAND PARK VILLAGE INC: $211,442 over 5y, 16% of budgetDUPONT CIRCLE VILLAGE: $210,431 over 5y, 18% of budgetWATERFRONT VILLAGE INC: $207,633 over 5y, 22% of budgetMOUNT PLEASANT VILLAGE INC: $199,557 over 5y, 68% of budgetGreater Brookland Intergenerational Village: $199,130 over 4y, 42% of budgetGLOVER PARK VILLAGE INC: $189,142 over 5y, 76% of budgetST MARY'S COURT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP: $17,178 over 1y, 0.5% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds CAPITOL HILL VILLAGE ↗
  • Who funds NORTHWEST NEIGHBORS VILLAGE ↗
  • Who funds GEORGETOWN VILLAGE INC ↗
  • Who funds Palisades Village ↗
  • Who funds EAST ROCK CREEK VILLAGE INC ↗
  • Who funds CLEVELAND PARK VILLAGE INC ↗
  • Who funds DUPONT CIRCLE VILLAGE ↗
  • Who funds WATERFRONT VILLAGE INC ↗
  • Who funds MOUNT PLEASANT VILLAGE INC ↗
  • Who funds Greater Brookland Intergenerational Village ↗
  • Who funds GLOVER PARK VILLAGE INC ↗
  • Who funds ST MARY'S COURT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Capitol Hill VillageDC24.3× 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

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Foggy Bottom West End Village Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Foggy Bottom West End Village Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Foggy Bottom West End Village Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Foggy Bottom West End Village Inc 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 from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 13 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its 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.

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

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Foggy Bottom West End Village’s filings →

    More from the funding graph