· Public charity
Looking Out Foundation
To amplify the impact of music by empowering those without a voice.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 16 grants below total $220,500 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,283,912 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,063,412 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $16k
- $10k–50k14 grants · $205k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Exalt Youth | $20,000 |
| Equality Florida Institute Inc | $20,000 |
| Head Count | $20,000 |
| Thrive Youth Center Inc | $20,000 |
| PEN American Center | $20,000 |
| Outright Vermont | $20,000 |
| South Carolina Philharmonic | $15,000 |
| Tulsa Community Foundation | $10,000 |
| Queen Ann Nzinga Center | $10,000 |
| Serve Your City | $10,000 |
| Make Shift Art Space | $10,000 |
| Americana Music Foundation | $10,000 |
| Vine Maple Place | $10,000 |
| Children's Home Society of Idaho | $10,000 |
| Batala New York | $8,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY21–24, $550k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 92% 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
Grants abroad, by region — $961k on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 3 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: To support humanitarian aid and relief in Gaza.
Stated purpose: To support rural and indigenous women in addressing social, economic, and gender inequalities across the global south · To support educational and charitable activities in Mexico and across the world for LGTBQ+ communities
Stated purpose: To support funding initiatives for vulnerable and marginalized women around the world facing violence and extreme poverty
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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 14% of Looking Out Foundation’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, 26% of the giving stays in TN; read by stated purpose it is 23% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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.
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 +80% since the first grant, against -10% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 14 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 10% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $191k 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
- CICHILDREN IN CONFLICT INC2× · 2021–2022 · $350k · revenue +80%
- UUNMANAGEABLE2× · 2021–2023 · $65k · revenue ×17 · 36% of their budget
- OIOUTRIGHT INTERNATIONAL2× · 2020–2022 · $54k · revenue +199%
Funded once
EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND INCone grant, 2022 · $140k · revenue -36%- OOUTMEMPHISone grant, 2023 · $135k · revenue -59%
- CFCENTER FOR CONTEMPLATIVE JUSTICEone grant, 2023 · $135k · revenue -33%
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.
The human rights campaign foundation is organized for the charitable and educational purposes of promoting public education and welfare for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (lgbtq+) community. the hrc foundation envisions…
To provide leadership and professional development, education and research to create workplaces free from discrimination.
Forward Together is a national reproductive justice organization that centers people, families, and communities who experience reproductive oppression. They prioritize queer, trans, Black, Indigenous, and other peoples of color and utilize…
Ultraviolet education fund (uvef) is a 501c3 organization. ultraviolet is the premier national organization advocating for gender justice issues using creative, strategic campaigning and digital-first organizing. ultraviolet drives…
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…
To use digital media for the purpose of educating and engaging the public in topics regarding inequality and imbalance of power in america.
Gender justice is a nonprofit legal and policy advocacy organization working to advance gender equity through the law.
Over 9,000 clients are served by gmhc's programs each year. gmhc provides a broad array of programs through the efforts of clinicians, trained volunteers, and professional staff who identify undiagnosed cases on hiv, ensure access and…
Upturn advances equity and justice in the design, governance, and use of technology.
Immigration equality promotes justice and equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and hiv-positive immigrants through direct legal services, policy advocacy, and impact litigation.
To work for equitable health care access and outcomes for people who experience injustice at the intersection of health status and identity.
To create a world that is healthy, just and fully equal for all lgbtq+ people.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hello in There Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Grimalkin Records 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 17 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) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
58 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. 58 of the 59 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
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 CHILDREN IN CONFLICT INC ↗
- Who funds EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND INC ↗
- Who funds OUTMEMPHIS ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR CONTEMPLATIVE JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds TENNESSEE PRIDE CHAMBER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TENNESSEE EQUALITY PROJECT FOUNDATI ↗
- Who funds TAKEACTION MN EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds KALEIDOSCOPE MINISTRIES INC ↗
- Who funds WE THE PROTESTERS INC ↗
- Who funds TREVOR PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds UNMANAGEABLE ↗
- Who funds TKDUBS PRODUCTIONS ↗
- Who funds HOLLER HEALTH JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project ↗
- Who funds CAROLINA ABORTION FUND ↗
- Who funds MIDWEST ACCESS COALITION ↗
- Who funds OUTRIGHT INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS ↗
- Who funds ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEWPORT FESTIVALS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL OF THE USA INC ↗
- Who funds CAMPAIGN FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INC DBA THE CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds TRUTH FOR JUSTICE RIGHTS IN IRAN ↗
- Who funds EQUALITY FLORIDA INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds THE IF PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Power and Potential Inc ↗
- Who funds EXALT YOUTH ↗
- Who funds TRUE COLORS UNITED INC ↗
- Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS AMERICA ↗
- Who funds PEN AMERICAN CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THRIVE YOUTH CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds HEAD COUNT INC ↗
- Who funds PLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND INC ↗
- Who funds OUTRIGHT VERMONT ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL GOOD FUND INC ↗
- Who funds HONOR THE EARTH ↗
- Who funds SOUTH CAROLINA PHILHARMONIC INC ↗
- Who funds SERVE YOUR CITY ↗
- Who funds NOISE FOR NOW ↗
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 Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee Inc · Tides Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · American Endowment Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Network for Good · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Jpmorgan Chase 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 organization Looking Out 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.
- Care Dimensions Inc — 14% of income from government
- Outright Vermont — 13% of income from government
- Tulsa Community Foundation — 11% of income from government
- Queen Ann Nzinga Center Inc — 3% of income from government
- Youth Haven 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 Looking Out Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Looking Out 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.