· Private foundation
Huber Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $50k–250k2 grants · $250k
- $250k+7 grants · $3.5M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| American Civil Liberties Union Foundation | $750,000 |
| Center For Reproductive Rights | $750,000 |
| National Abortion Federation | $500,000 |
| National Women's Law Center | $450,000 |
| Planned Parenthood Federation of America | $400,000 |
| National Partnership for Women and Families | $300,000 |
| NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation | $300,000 |
| Feminist Majority Foundation | $200,000 |
| Planned Parenthood of Northern New England | $50,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 94% of your 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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +39% since the first grant, against -42% for the ones you funded once.
12 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down.
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 FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC7× · 2017–2024 · $4.0M · revenue +102%
THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC7× · 2017–2024 · $3.9M · revenue +69%
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC7× · 2017–2024 · $3.3M · revenue +12%
Funded once
- IIFWHENHOWone grant, 2022 · $250k · revenue -42%
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.
Women's law project creates a more just and equitable society by advancing the rights and status of all women throughout their lives. to this end, we engage in high-impact litigation, advocacy, and education. the core values of women's law…
Preservation of civil liberties through litigation and public education.
The national network of abortion funds (nnaf) is determined to build a world where all reproductive options are valued, accessible, and stigma-free. we believe all people know how to best care for their own bodies and build their own…
The national institute for reproductive health action fund conducts non-partisan issue advocacy and electoral engagement to advance reproductive health, rights, and justice in states and cities across the country. nirh action fund builds…
The institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the united states and globally.
National institute for reproductive health, inc. works to protect and advance equitable access to reproductive health care by building power at the state and local level. using an approach that is rooted in partnerships with state and…
Pregnancy justice advances and defends the rights of pregnant people, no matter if they give birth, experience a pregnancy loss, or have an abortion. we advance our mission in four ways: by providing criminal defense, by advocating for…
The action fund engages in legislative advocacy, voter education, grassroots organizing and other activities to promote fairness in the workplace, reproductive health and rights, access to quality, affordable health care and policies that…
Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.
To promote civil liberties through communication and interaction with and between the citizens and legislators of the state of florida
To build and maintain financial support for planned parenthood north central states to advance and protect sexual and reproductive health care for all.
To advance the planned parenthood mission internationally, including support for the provision and protection of sexual and reproductive health services and rights, and ensuring that all people have access to reproductive and sexual…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Women's Law Center and the most unlike its peers is Feminist Majority Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
14 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.
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 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES ↗
- Who funds FEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Planned Parenthood of Northern New England Inc ↗
- Who funds IFWHENHOW ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE TRUSTEES ↗
- Who funds HOPEWELL FUND ↗
- Who funds THIRD SECTOR NEW ENGLAND 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: The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift 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 Huber 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Third Sector New England Inc — 3% of income from government
- Planned Parenthood of Northern New England Inc — 2% 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 Huber Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Huber 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.