· Private foundation
Harnisch Family Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
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.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k24 grants · $90k
- $10k–50k27 grants · $591k
- $50k–250k21 grants · $1.9M
- $250k+2 grants · $750k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ABORTION COALITION FOR TELEMEDICINE | $500,000 |
| UTAH FILM CENTER | $250,000 |
| NATIONAL MS SOCIETY | $248,743 |
| PECONIC BAY MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION | $150,000 |
| CREATIVE VISIONS FOUNDATION | $127,000 |
| PHYSICIANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH | $100,000 |
| DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY TELEVISION CENTER | $100,000 |
| SOUTHERN VISION ALLIANCE | $100,000 |
| FILM INDEPENDENT | $100,000 |
| HIGHER HEIGHTS LEADERSHIP FUND | $100,000 |
| YWCA NASHVILLE & MIDDLE TENNESSEE | $100,000 |
| APOLITICALAG FOUNDATION GGMBH | $99,750 |
| WOMEN MAKE MOVIES | $87,000 |
| CENTER FOR CINEMATIC & EXPERIMENTAL ARTS | $75,000 |
| WOMEN DONORS NETWORK | $63,272 |
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 (FY17–25, $941k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 99% 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.
88 repeat relationships — 40 still active in FY2025, 48 since wound down; 33 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 48% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.7M 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
- UFUTAH FILM CENTER5× · 2018–2025 · $1.0M · revenue +128%
- WDWOMEN DONORS NETWORK9× · 2017–2025 · $844k · revenue +276%
- WMWOMEN MAKE MOVIES INC7× · 2017–2025 · $613k · revenue +82%
Funded once
- EFEQUALITY FEDERATION INSTITUTEone grant, 2024 · $165k
- JPJEZEBEL PRODUCTIONS INCone grant, 2024 · $130k · revenue 0%
- RIRace2Education Incone grant, 2023 · $109k
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.
Advocate for gender equality in the film industry.
Established in 1971, the mission of the new york foundation for the arts (nyfa) is to empower artists in all disciplines, as well as cultural workers, to achieve success on their own terms by providing critical support, resources, and…
Women deliver is a global feminist advocacy organization with a clear mission: to ensure that every self-identifying girl and woman has control over her body and life. see organization's full mission statement in schedule o.
CITY REPORT, INC. serves the people of New York through independent journalism that answers their information needs and holds the powerful to account.
The fuller project is the global newsroom dedicated to groundbreaking reporting that catalyzes positive change for women.
World Pulse is a global social impact network connecting women from 227 countries to accelerate social change. We provide a safe and supportive online space where women can speak for themselves, make powerful connections, and access the…
Founded in 1995 wfpg works to expand the foreign policy dialogue across policital divides and generations and to support women at every stake of their careers. as champions of womens leadership we are proud of our role in expanding the…
The missions is to provide information and resources to counter disinformation, propaganda, and offer a window to trusted content about the events that are going on in the Middle East.
Girls for gender equity (gge) works intergenerationally, through a black feminist lens, to achieve gender and racial justice by centering the leadership of black girls and gender-expansive young people of color to reshape culture and…
The center for international policy is a woman-led, progressive, independent nonprofit center for research, education, and advocacy working to advance a more peaceful, just, and sustainable u.s. approach to foreign policy. through…
Promote gender equity in the film & television industry
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ms Foundation for Women Inc and the most unlike its peers is Soapbox the Feminist 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 18 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 10% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% 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.
335 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 335 of the 420 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 UTAH FILM CENTER ↗
- Who funds PHILANTHROPIC VENTURES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WOMEN DONORS NETWORK ↗
- Who funds WOMEN MAKE MOVIES INC ↗
- Who funds ABORTION COALITION FOR TELEMEDICINE INC ↗
- Who funds THE FILM COLLABORATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds Higher Heights Leadership Fund ↗
- Who funds Physicians For Reproductive Health ↗
- Who funds The Representation Project ↗
- Who funds YWCA NASHVILLE & MIDDLE TENNESSEE ↗
- Who funds WOMEN MOVING MILLIONS INC ↗
- Who funds MS FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN INC ↗
- Who funds THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF MIDDLE TENNESSEE INC ↗
- Who funds FILM INDEPENDENT ↗
- Who funds JEZEBEL PRODUCTIONS INC ↗
- Who funds CREATIVE VISIONS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE 19TH NEWS ↗
- Who funds Race2Education Inc ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTARY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN DOCUMENTARY FUND ↗
- Who funds RACHEL'S NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds Book Em ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY TELEVISION CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN VISION ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media ↗
- Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
- Who funds EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds Bold Impact ↗
- Who funds LUCY BURNS INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds CHICKEN & EGG FILMS INC ↗
- Who funds UNIONDOCS 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: William F Harnisch Foundation Inc · The Ford Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Memorial Foundation Inc · New York Women's Foundation Inc · Perspective Media Initiatives Inc · Novo Foundation · Inmaat Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Hca Healthcare Foundation · Catapult Film Fund · Chicken & Egg Films Inc
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 Harnisch Family Foundation 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.
- Community Workshops Inc — 39% of income from government
- Transition Projects Inc — 29% of income from government
- The Morgan State University Foundation Inc — 7% of income from government
- Provincetown Film Societyinc — 6% of income from government
- The Center for Independent Documentary Inc — 6% of income from government
- Sandy Hook Promise Foundation — 0% of income from government
- American Repertory Theatre Co Inc — 0% 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 Harnisch Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Harnisch Family Foundation 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.