Skip to content

· Public charity

Marjorie Cook Foundation

The foundation was created for the purpose of furthering and fostering the equality of women under the laws of the united states.

$690k
Granted FY2020
8
Grants FY2020
2
States reached
$200k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of Marjorie Cook Foundation’s FY2021 grant dollars went to Associated Jewish Charities Of Baltimore, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2021 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2020, the last year Marjorie Cook Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 8 organizations, $690k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

8
’20
0
’21

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2021.

Philanthropy$528kCrime & Legal$330kHuman Services$200kCivil Rights$160k
02FY2020 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2020

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $40k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $650k
$150,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HOUSE OF RUTH MD$200,000
NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER$150,000
MID-SHORE PRO BONO INC$150,000
NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES$150,000
WOMEN'S LAW CENTER OF MARYLAND$10,000
SOUTHERN MARYLAND CENTER FOR FAMILY ADVOCACY$10,000
NARAL PRO-CHOICE MARYLAND FUND INC$10,000
MID-SHORE COUNCIL ON FAMILY VIOLENCE$10,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY20–20, $350k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 57% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%MID-SHORE PRO BONO INC: $150k → 10%HOUSE OF RUTH MD: $200k → 19%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
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.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Women's Law Project

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…

Civil Rights
2
Sexual Violence Law Center

Sexual Violence Law Center (SVLC) is a nonprofit law firm that protects the safety, privacy, and civil rights of survivors of sexual and gender-based violence in Washington through holistic and trauma-informed practices rooted in race and…

Human Services
3
Women's Center and Shelter Civil Law Project

To provide civil legal services to women in crisis.

Human Services
4
Women Against Abuse Legal Center

The women against abuse legal center provides free attorney representation, advocacy and telephone counseling to victims of domestic violence seeking legal protections in philadelphia.

Crime & Legal
5
Women Against Abuse Inc

The mission of women against abuse is to provide quality, compassionate, and nonjudgmental services in a manner that fosters self-respect and independence in persons experiencing intimate partner violence and to lead the struggle to end…

Human Services
6
Ywca of Annapolis & Anne Arundel County Maryland Inc

The ywca is dedicated to eliminating racism, empowering women and promoting peace, justice, freedom and dignity for all with an emphasis on domestic violence and crisis intervention services.

—
7
Women Aware Inc

Women aware envisions a society where individuals can live free from violence and injustice. our mission is to promote the safety and self-sufficiency of individuals and families affected by domestic violence in middlesex county, new…

Human Services
8
Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice

The survivor justice center secures justice for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault and empowers them to create their own future.

—
9
Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service Inc

The mission of the maryland volunteer lawyers service (mvls) is to remove barriers to justice through free civil legal help, community engagement, and advocacy for equitable laws. (see schedule o for the complete mission statement.)

Crime & Legal
10
The Center for Family Justice Inc

To break the cycle of abuse and violence - domestic, sexual and child by providing services that create hope, restore lives and drive social change through education and community collaboration

Human Services
11
Wrc Inc

The women's resource center's mission is to eliminate domestic violence and sexual assault abuse through advocacy, education, system change, and empowering services to all surviors. the center provides sexual assault and domestic violence…

—
12
Womens Resource Center of Newport and Bristol Counties

The women's resource center empowers survivors by providing trauma-informed services with equity and compassion while working collaboratively with the community to eliminate the root causes of interpersonal abuse.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Women's Law Center of Md Inc; the most unlike its peers is Naral Pro-Choice Maryland Fund Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

9 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ASSOCIATED JEWISH CHARITIES OF BALTIMORE: $527,933 · PhilanthropyASSOCIATED JEWISH CHARITIES OF BALTIMORETHE HOUSE OF RUTH MARYLAND INC: $200,000 · Human ServicesTHE HOUSE OF RUTH MARYLAND INCSHORE LEGAL ACCESS INC: $150,000 · Human ServicesSHORE LEGAL ACCESS INCNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES: $150,000 · OtherNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN…NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER: $150,000 · OtherNATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER+3 more: $30,000 · Other+3 moreNARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Fund Inc: $10,000 · Arts & Culture
Philanthropy$527,933Human Services$350,000Other$330,000Arts & Culture$10,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetASSOCIATED JEWISH CHARITIES OF BALTIMORE: $527,933 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetTHE HOUSE OF RUTH MARYLAND INC: $200,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES: $150,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetNATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER: $150,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetSHORE LEGAL ACCESS INC: $150,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetTHE WOMEN'S LAW CENTER OF MD INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetSOUTHERN MARYLAND CENTER FOR FAMILY ADVOCACY INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetNARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Fund Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Maryland Legal Services CorporationMD13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Maryland Legal Services Corporation · Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Marjorie Cook Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Marjorie Cook Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 24%
  • The Women's Law Center of Md Inc: 24% of income from government
  • The House of Ruth Maryland Inc: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.
04Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Marjorie Cook Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Marjorie Cook 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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 9 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Marjorie Cook’s filings →

More from the funding graph