· Public charity
Madre Inc
MADRE INC.'s mission is to advance women's human rights by meeting urgent needs in communities and building lasting solutions to the crises women face.
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 1 grants below total $5,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $5,287,266 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $5,282,266 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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WOMEN IN MIGRATION NETWORK | $5,000 |
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 (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 95% 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.
Grants abroad, by region — $5.3M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 8 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: RELIEF
Stated purpose: RELIEF
Stated purpose: RELIEF
Stated purpose: RELIEF
Stated purpose: RELIEF
Stated purpose: RELIEF
Stated purpose: RELIEF
Stated purpose: RELIEF
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.
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 +36% since the first grant, against +11% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 1 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, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
- TCTHE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK SCHOOL OF LAW FOUNDATION INC3× · 2018–2023 · $219k · revenue +530%
- CPCONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS CENTER2× · 2019–2020 · $51k · revenue +36%
- MIMOBILITY INTERNATIONAL USA2× · 2018–2021 · $20k · revenue -14%
Funded once
CENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY INCone grant, 2018 · $21k · revenue +11%
THE PRAXIS PROJECT INCone grant, 2021 · $20k · revenue -23%- GIGRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INCone grant, 2020 · $9k · revenue +20%
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 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…
CRI is an international climate and human rights monitoring and advocacy organization dedicated to preventing climate change and human rights abuses.
Inclusive Development International supports communities around the world to defend their rights and resources in the face of harmful corporate activities and internationally financed development projects, and we advocate for a more just…
Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.
To champion human dignity by designing the solutions to the social problems that infringe upon it.
Advance democracy, equity, and self-determination in U.S. territories through participatory advocacy, narrative and cultural change, and ecosystem building.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
The Guernica Centre for International Justice represents the interests of victims in national and international legal proceedings, putting in place transnational accountability strategies that seek to maximize the protection of victims'…
Community partners international works in partnership with local community-based organizations (cbos) in myanmar and along its borders and this is the core of our work. together with local partners, we listen to local voices, build local…
Council for inclusive governance (cig) is a nonpartisan and non-governmental institution that promotes inclusive and responsive governance. it facilitates constructive dialogue as a means of fostering interparty cooperation, interethnic…
Reduce global poverty and improve lives through innovative economic research that drives better policy and practice by the world's top decision makers. we focus on the intersection of developing countries and the governments, institutions…
To lead and coordinate the global initiative to address and prevent criminalization, violence, and impunity against indigenous peoples towards strengthening their collectives, solidarity, and actions.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Praxis Project Inc and the most unlike its peers is New Eyes for the Needy Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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 THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK SCHOOL OF LAW FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ↗
- Who funds CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS CENTER ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY INC ↗
- Who funds THE PRAXIS PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds MOBILITY INTERNATIONAL USA ↗
- Who funds GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds Progress Texas Institute ↗
- Who funds WOMEN IN MIGRATION NETWORK 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 Ford Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Madre Inc 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.
- Mobility International Usa — 33% 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 Madre Inc?
Find your warmest path to Madre Inc 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.