How much did HEALTH CARE WITHOUT HARM grant in FY2024?

Health$4.0MEnvironment$386kCommunity Improvement$300kFood & Nutrition$135kHuman Services$130kEducation$40kPublic Benefit$36kInternational$26kPhilanthropy$25kOther$282k

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2018

healthysciencesolutions

2019

science

2020

—

2021

foodmanagementsustainabilitypractices

2022

give asiaenvironmentwell-beingeconomic social

2023

—

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k1 grant · $6k
$10k–50k5 grants · $82k

$13,334

Median grant

States reached

$19M

Total assets

Largest grants

SOCIAL GOOD FUND - CLIMATE AND HEALTH ALLIANCE$25,000
PRACTICE GREENHEALTH$22,864
MUDBONE GROWN LLC$13,334
SOCIETY OF NATIVE NATIONS$10,625
OREGON CLIMATE AND AGRICULTURE NETWORK$10,000
EMERALD CITIES COLLABORATIVES$6,000

02The need

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 (FY17–17, $130k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10% — the area typically sits at 10%. 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.

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 46% of HEALTH CARE WITHOUT HARM’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 75% of the giving stays in VA; read by stated purpose it is 45% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.

HEALTH CARE WITHOUT HARMlessmore of its giving

Placed by recipient address

Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$4.6M · 9 repeat orgs$774k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$4.6M

$750k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+70%

+74%

Still filing today

89%

75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 73% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $24k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Community ImprovementEnvironmentHealthFood & NutritionHuman ServicesInternationalOther

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

EC
Ecology Center
2× · 2017–2018 · $196k · revenue +70%
SA
Science and Environmental Health Network
3× · 2017–2019 · $90k · revenue +33%
SC
SD Community Health Improvement Partners (SD CHIP)
4× · 2017–2020 · $90k · revenue +16%

Funded once

GROUNDWORK USAgraduated
one grant, 2022 · $167k · revenue +112%
Tides Centergraduated
one grant, 2017 · $130k · revenue +74%
FO
FRIENDS OF THE EARTHgraduated
one grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue +67%

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.

The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education

Center for Energy and Environment

The Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) is a clean energy nonprofit with decades of special expertise in energy efficiency. Working in homes, buildings, and communities, CEE discovers and deploys the most effective energy solutions to…

Environment

Environmental and Energy Study Institute

Educate policymakers about equitable science-based solutions for climate, energy, & the environment

—

Climate Foundation

To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.

Science & Tech

CarbonPlan

We work collaboratively to build open tools and resources for the evaluation and deployment of robust climate programs. We share analyses through public communication and collaboration with journalists in order to foster effective climate…

Environment

Cascade Climate Inc

To accelerate progress in interventions that harness Earths natural systems to stabilize the climate.

Environment

The Commons Inc

Partnering with individuals and organizations to access, organize, and share data that inspires action that restores our environment.

—

Coalition for Green Capital

To halt climate change by accelerating investment in clean energy technologies.

Environment

Csp North America Inc

CSP (The Center for Sustainable Finance and Private Wealth) North America works at the intersection of scientific research, wealth holders, and investment professionals to empower investors to move private wealth towards sustainable…

Philanthropy

Earthcorps

To cultivate leaders and community partnerships to advance environmental justice.

International

Environment Next Inc

Environment next supports individuals, nonprofits and businesses around the world on solutions to complex climate issues.

Environment

The Schuylkill Center for Environmental

To inspire meaningful connections between people and nature.

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Groundwork Usa Inc and the most unlike its peers is Tides Center. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

06the grantee network

19 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2024.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

19/19

Grantees still filing

16/19

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Health$3,992,468Environment$386,000Community Improvement$300,333Other$368,634Food & Nutrition$135,000Human Services$129,560Education$40,000

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.

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.

American Online Giving Foundation IncDE4.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation 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 organisation HEALTH CARE WITHOUT HARM 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.

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

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: Practice Greenhealth.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

high risk

~3 months of operating runway; revenue held over 8 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

8 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 760815736 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 Practice Greenhealth, 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

FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 3 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue held over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 46% 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 Health Care Without Harm?

Find your warmest path to Health Care Without Harm 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.

HEALTH CARE WITHOUT HARM

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Where the work is directed

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

19 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2024.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Health Care Without Harm?

More from the funding graph

HEALTH CARE WITHOUT HARM

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Where the work is directed

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

19 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2024.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Health Care Without Harm?

More from the funding graph