· Public charity
Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy
To improve the skills, wages, and working conditions of workers in the tourism industry and to assure that the benefits of tourism contribute equitably to the economic and social development of all communities in the greater los angeles area.
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.
The 3 grants below total $376,315 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $397,184 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $20,869 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
- $10k–50k2 grants · $30k
- $250k+1 grant · $346k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ROSLA | $346,315 |
| CLUE LA | $15,000 |
| SEE(FOR LIBRE) | $15,000 |
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 (FY21–21, $200k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% 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.
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 +73% since the first grant, against +14% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 2 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, 4% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $361k 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
- KIKOREAN IMMIGRANT WORKERS ADVOCATES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA2× · 2021–2022 · $450k · revenue -1%
- CPCOMMUNITY PARTNERS2× · 2021–2022 · $273k · revenue +73%
- IMInterfaith Movement for Human Integrity7× · 2017–2024 · $225k · revenue +144%
Funded once
- SCStrategic Concepts In Organizing & Policy Educationone grant, 2021 · $200k · revenue +14%
- TRTHE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAone grant, 2021 · $88k
Working Partnerships USAone grant, 2023 · $75k · revenue -10%
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.
A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…
The L.A. Co-op Lab is a collective that builds capacity for worker ownership in Los Angeles as a pathway toward a more equitable and democratic economy.
Active San Gabriel Valley (ActiveSGV) is a community-based environmental advocacy and public health non-profit organization. Our mission is to promote a more sustainable, equitable, and livable San Gabriel Valley.
The AIA California, in collaboration with local components, is the voice of the architectural profession.
CAUSE's mission is to build grassroots power to realize social, economic and environmental justice for the people of the Central Coast Region through policy research, leadership development, organizing and advocacy.
California Interfaith Power & Light inspires and mobilizes individuals and communities of faith and conscience to take boldand justaction on climate change.
The Alliance for Collective Action convenes leaders of environmental and social movements to advance solutions for a thriving planet. We advance our mission through the Alliance Center building and community, as well as through Collective…
To increase public awareness of elected officials' performances on environmental issues, to influence decisions of public officials on environmental legislation and policy, and to engage in related social welfare activities to promote and…
A broad based network of local institutions - congregations, synagogues, non-profits and civic associations - that serve as a foundation for public relationships, leadership development and action around issues that affect our communities.
To ensure that the workers in the construction industry in Los Angeles are highly trained and professional. The organization seeks the creation of good jobs, safety for workers, health care and a secure retirement for working families.
APEN builds immigrant and refugee power for a just transition with local roots and statewide impact so all people can live, work, learn, play and thrive in a clean and healthy environment.
Our mission is to fight against fossil fuel executives and industries that have turned our communities into dumping grounds for toxic waste, poisoning our air, water, lan, and bodies. We organize to oppose giant oil refineries, dirty…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc and the most unlike its peers is Strategic Concepts in Organizing & Policy Education. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
9 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. 9 of the 11 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 KOREAN IMMIGRANT WORKERS ADVOCATES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES ALLIANCE FOR A NEW ECONOMY ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity ↗
- Who funds Strategic Concepts In Organizing & Policy Education ↗
- Who funds Working Partnerships USA ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA CALLS EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC ↗
- Who funds Georgia Strategic Alliance for New ↗
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: Tides Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Marguerite Casey Foundation · Liberty Hill Foundation · Weingart Foundation · The James Irvine Foundation · The California Endowment · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The San Francisco Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy 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.
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.