Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation Dossiers
Plinth

· Private foundation

Mary Wohlford 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.

$180k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What you fund
0197% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.

Health$622kCivil Rights$337kPhilanthropy$141kHuman Services$135kEnvironment$91kYouth Development$75kArts & Culture$55kPublic Benefit$54kOther$0
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $80k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
$15,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$5.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FREE FLOW NM$50,000
GIRLS INC OF SANTA FE$50,000
IDAHO RIVERS UNITED$25,000
TEWA WOMEN UNITED$15,000
FIRST NATIONS COMMUNITY HEALTH SOUR$15,000
REUNITY RESOURCES$15,000
STRAY HEARTS ANIMAL SHELTER$10,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $105k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%THE CENTER FOR YOUTH SERVICES INC: $3k → 14%TEWA WOMEN UNITED: $15k → 18%THE CENTER FOR YOUTH SERVICES INC: $3k → 14%FREE FLOW NM: $50k → 12%TEWA WOMEN UNITED: $15k → 18%TEWA WOMEN UNITED: $10k → 18%FREE FLOW NM: $10k → 12%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

ID
NY
MA
PA
CA
VA
MD
NM
KS
DC

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

42%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$695k · 24 repeat orgs$951k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +60% since the first grant, against +51% for the ones you funded once.

24 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2024, 18 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

24
35

Total granted

$695k
$926k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+60%
+51%

Still filing today

79%
63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthEnvironmentCivil RightsHuman ServicesEducationAnimalsOther

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

  • GI
    GIRLS INCORPORATED OF SANTA FE INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $70k · revenue +134%
  • FF
    FREE FLOW NM INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $60k · revenue +247% · 31% of their budget
  • TC
    The Center for Investigative Reporting formrly Foundation for National Progress
    2× · 2017–2018 · $54k · revenue +67%

Funded once

  • FM
    FEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2018 · $140k · revenue +10%
  • UU
    Upstream USA Incgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $100k · revenue +313%
  • TW
    Trust Women Foundation Incgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $100k · revenue +43%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo Inc

Planned Parenthood Northern California generates healthier communities through the delivery of quality sexual and reproductive health care services.

Health
2
Ipas

Ipas works globally to advance reproductive justice by expanding access to abortion and contraception.

International
3
Gynuity Health Projects Inc

Gynuity health projects works to develop and advocate for the use of scientific, clinical and programmatic evidence in reproductive and maternal health, assuring that each individual benefits from the fruits of medical science and…

Health
4
National Institute for Reproductive Health Inc

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…

Civil Rights
5
International Network for the Reduction of Abortion Discrimination and Stigma

The International Network for the Reduction of Abortion Discrimination and Stigma (inroads) builds cross-movement collective power, provides flexible resources, and strengthens movements across the global abortion justice ecosystem to…

Civil Rights
6
Forward Together

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…

Health
7
Planned Parenthood California Central Coast

To improve our communities' sexual and reproductive health outcomes through health care, education, and advocacy.

Health
8
Pro-Choice Arizona

Pro-Choice Arizona centers abolition and reproductive justice values to prioritize community needs. We advance reproductive equity, pregnancy and family justice, and abortion access for all folks living in Arizona through direct service…

Health
9
Center for Intimacy Justice

Center for Intimacy Justice (CIJ) works to create equity and wellbeing in people's intimate lives. CIJ's first program is changing Big Tech platforms discriminatory suppression of womens sexual and reproductive health information online.

Civil Rights
10
Pro-Choice Washington

To protect and promote every persons right to access the full range of reproductive healthcare choices in Washington State, including safe and legal abortion, through education, advocacy, lobbying and coalition-building

—
11
Abortion Care Network

Abortion care network's unique role in the abortion care community is to support independent abortion care providers and the patients they serve. to do so, we provide direct programming, technical assistance and grants directly to our…

Health
12
Pathfinder International

Pathfinder expands access to sexual and reproductive health services, opening the door to opportunities for women and all individuals to thrive-economically, educationally, and civically. driven by our country-led leadership and local…

International

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Women's Foundation of California and the most unlike its peers is Leap 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.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyCommunity Health CentersNative Hawaiian Community D…Animal Rescue and AdoptionUrban Agriculture & Food Ac…Land Conservation Organizat…Child and Family ServicesFood Pantries & AssistanceGovernment Accountability R…Pregnancy Support Services
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 32 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%2%<5yr14%5%5–10yr19%15%10–20yr16%32%20–35yr13%37%35–55yr16%10%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%3%<5yr14%12%5–10yr19%19%10–20yr16%23%20–35yr13%35%35–55yr16%8%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.0%0/46
the rest of the field
13%
240,396/1,819,519

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.

04the grantee network

44 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. 44 of the 61 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
14
Early backer (in before they grew)
43/44
Grantees still filing
32/44
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

FEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATION — $140,007 · OtherFEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATIONFUNDERS NETWORK — $50,000 · OtherFUNDERS NETWORKACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIF — $50,000 · OtherACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFREPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION — $37,060 · OtherWOMEN'S FOUNDATION OF CALIFORNIA — $35,000 · OtherEXHALE — $32,500 · OtherCOMMUNITY INITIATIVES — $40,000 · OtherInternational Media Project — $54,000 · OtherInternational Media ProjectThe Center for Investigative Reporting formrly Foundation for National Progress — $54,000 · OtherThe Center for Investigative Reporting formrly Founda…+25 more — $314,660 · Other+25 moreUpstream USA Inc — $100,000 · HealthUpstream USA IncTrust Women Foundation Inc — $100,000 · HealthTrust Women Foundation …FIRST NATIONS COMMUNITY HEALTHSOURCE — $40,000 · HealthFIRST NATIONS COMMUNITY…National Women's Health Network — $30,000 · HealthNational Women's Health…MEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE — $25,000 · HealthMEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CH…Public Health Institute — $25,000 · HealthPublic Health InstituteREPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACCESS PROJECT INC — $20,000 · HealthREPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACC…+1 more — $10,000 · HealthFREE FLOW NM INC — $60,000 · Human ServicesTEWA WOMEN UNITED — $40,000 · Human ServicesAll-Options — $25,000 · Human ServicesThe Center for Youth Services Inc — $5,000 · Human ServicesUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION — $60,000 · EducationSOCIAL GOOD FUND INC — $55,500 · EducationCITIZEN SCHOOLS INC — $5,000 · Education+1 more — $3,000 · EducationWestern Pennsylvania Fund for Choic — $25,000 · EnvironmentUPPER PECOS WATERSHED ASSOCIATION — $25,000 · EnvironmentIDAHO RIVERS UNITED — $25,000 · EnvironmentREUNITY RESOURCES — $25,000 · EnvironmentBaykeeper — $8,050 · EnvironmentSave The Bay — $7,990 · EnvironmentIFWHENHOW — $30,000 · Civil RightsTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC — $25,000 · Civil RightsPhysicians For Reproductive Health — $25,000 · Civil RightsPROVIDE INC — $25,000 · Civil RightsGIRLS INCORPORATED OF SANTA FE INC — $70,000 · Youth Development
Other$807,227Health$350,000Human Services$130,000Education$123,500Environment$116,040Civil Rights$105,000Youth Development$70,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetFEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATION — $140,007 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetUpstream USA Inc — $100,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetTrust Women Foundation Inc — $100,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetGIRLS INCORPORATED OF SANTA FE INC — $70,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION — $60,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFREE FLOW NM INC — $60,000 over 2y, 31% of budgetSOCIAL GOOD FUND INC — $55,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetInternational Media Project — $54,000 over 2y, 7.0% of budgetThe Center for Investigative Reporting formrly Foundation for National Progress — $54,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetTEWA WOMEN UNITED — $40,000 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetFIRST NATIONS COMMUNITY HEALTHSOURCE — $40,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY INITIATIVES — $40,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION — $37,060 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetWOMEN'S FOUNDATION OF CALIFORNIA — $35,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetIFWHENHOW — $30,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetMEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE — $25,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetAll-Options — $25,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetPublic Health Institute — $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC — $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUPPER PECOS WATERSHED ASSOCIATION — $25,000 over 2y, 5.3% of budgetPhysicians For Reproductive Health — $25,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetGroundswell Fund — $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPROVIDE INC — $25,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetIDAHO RIVERS UNITED — $25,000 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetACCESS REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE — $25,000 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetHumane Society of Taos Inc dba Stray Hearts Animal Shelter — $25,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetNATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION — $25,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetGuttmacher Institute Inc — $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetREUNITY RESOURCES — $25,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACCESS PROJECT INC — $20,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetTHE HORSE SHELTER — $15,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetMARIN COMMUNITY CLINIC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSAFE & SOUND — $9,390 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBaykeeper — $8,050 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetSave The Bay — $7,990 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetWOMEN'S COMMUNITY CLINIC — $7,500 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetThe Center for Youth Services Inc — $5,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCITIZEN SCHOOLS INC — $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFOOD RUNNERS — $5,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetLEAP INC — $3,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budget
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.

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.

The San Francisco Fou…The Susan Thompson Bu…Silicon Valley Commun…Santa Fe Community Fo…Marin Community Found…Lisa & Douglas Goldma…The David and Lucile …The Yelp FoundationNew Venture FundNusenda FoundationThe Grove FoundationThe Irving Harris Fou…
The San Francisco FoundationCA20.6× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The San Francisco Foundation · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Santa Fe Community Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · Lisa & Douglas Goldman Fund · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · The Yelp Foundation · New Venture Fund · Nusenda Foundation · The Grove Foundation · The Irving Harris 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 Mary Wohlford 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.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%your share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 8%
  • Citizen Schools Inc — 8% of income from government
  • Upstream Usa Inc — 4% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
10report 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

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.

05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Mary Wohlford Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Mary Wohlford 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 61 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines