Skip to content

· Public charity

Nafasi Fund

Undergird the powerful work of black-led organizations by connecting them to the opportunities capacity and space they need to increase their effectiveness and grow independent; when their vision is realized black-led organizations will be strong and sustainable with all ofthe tools they need to determine and direct social change.

$8.9M
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$5.8M
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

Religion$13MEducation$175kCommunity Improvement$61kArts & Culture$25kHealth$5kHuman Services$5k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $6,956,336, the rows itemized in this filing. The $8,886,770 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,930,434 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $175k
  • $250k+2 grants · $6.8M
$997,108
Median grant
3
States reached
$3.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE MORIAH GROUP INC$5,784,344
AYOKU PROPERTIES LLC$997,108
COMMUNITY BUILD VENTURES LLC$174,884
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY22–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 92% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%SOIL AND SHADOW: $25k → 10%Social & Env Entrepreneurs 23564: $27k → 14%THE MORIAH GROUP INC: $5.8M → 11%AYOKU PROPERTIES LLC: $997k → 9%COMMUNITY BUILD VENTURES LLC: $175k → 13%RARE COACHING & CONSULTING LLC: $24k → 9%Juanita Sims Doty Fdtn 2675: $5k → 23%Soil and Shadow 6857 Armour: $5k → 10%THE MORIAH GROUP INC: $4.5M → 11%COMMUNITY BUILD VENTURES LLC: $10k → 13%The Moriah Group 1101 McMurtrie: $1.9M → 11%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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$12M · 3 repeat orgs$1.1M to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
3

Total granted

$12M
$55k

Still filing today

0%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $997k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • TM
    THE MORIAH GROUP INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $12M
  • CB
    COMMUNITY BUILD VENTURES LLC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $185k
  • SA
    SOIL AND SHADOW
    2× · 2022–2023 · $30k

Funded once

  • SA
    SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INCgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $27k · revenue +53%
  • RC
    RARE COACHING & CONSULTING LLC
    one grant, 2023 · $24k
  • JS
    JUANITA SIMS DOTY FOUNDATIONgraduated
    2× · 2021–2022 · $5k · revenue +45%
How this is measured

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

04Its 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
Youth Represent Inc

Youth represent uses legal services, policy advocacy, peer education, and other tools to build power and opportunity for black, latine, and other youth of color who the criminal legal system and other systems of oppression harm the most.…

Crime & Legal
2
Unitedly

Unitedly is a nonprofit organization based in San Mateo County, California. Unitedly was established to ensure Asian families and communities have access to equitable opportunities and resources to thrive in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Human Services
3
Chicago United for Equity

Connecting and amplifying the power of individuals to build a just, equitable, and inclusive city.

Civil Rights
4
Alternatives Inc

Alternatives, inc.'s mission is to facilitate personal development,strengthen family relationships and enhance the community's well being. serving over 3,000 youth and families annually, the organization offers a range of counseling and…

Health
5
Children and Youth Justice Center

The center for children & youth justice was founded in 2006 with one mission: reform the child welfare and juvenile justice systems to improve the lives of generations of children and youth in washington state. our focus is large-scale,…

Crime & Legal
6
Cityworks Dc

Our mission is to dramatically improve the early career outcomes of dc youth and young adults of color by creating innovative programs and by mobilizing employers, educators, and city leaders to create a local, diverse talent pipeline. our…

Education
7
California Urban Partnership

The California Urban Partnership's (CUP) mission is to build economic security in communities of color through policy research, education and organizing community action. We advocate for systems changes that increase investments to improve…

Community Improvement
8
Community Engagement Partners

To help funders and investors build authentic relationships with black community innovators. our work leads to stronger networks, greater resource equity, and powerful, mutually beneficial partnerships for more resilient and thriving black…

Education
9
The California Center for Civic Participation

To educate california youth about the operations of local, state, and federal government.

Public Benefit
10
California Partnership Safe Communities

stakeholders concerned with violence to build working alliances that span the often deep divisions among criminal justice agencies, the community, and young people at highest risk of gun violence. By prioritizing respect and dignity for…

—
11
Youth Policy Institute Inc

Youth policy institute (ypi) transforms los angeles neighborhoods, reducing poverty by offering cradle to college & career services.

—
12
California Youth Defender Center Inc

Defend youth rights by building and training a statewide defense coalition that challenges injustices, drives policy change, and champions community.

Crime & Legal
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc; the most unlike its peers is Moms of Black Boys United 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

11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2024.

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 2024, 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/11
Grantees still filing
6/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE MORIAH GROUP INC: $12,111,893 · OtherTHE MORIAH GROUP INCAYOKU PROPERTIES LLC: $997,108 · OtherAYOKU PROPERTIES LLC+3 more: $239,084 · OtherSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $26,625 · EnvironmentJUANITA SIMS DOTY FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Community Improvement
Other$13,348,085Environment$26,625Community Improvement$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $26,625 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJUANITA SIMS DOTY FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 2y, 0.5% 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.

  • Who funds SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC ↗
  • Who funds JUANITA SIMS DOTY FOUNDATION ↗

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.

Surdna Foundation IncNY13.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Surdna Foundation Inc · New Venture Fund · The Ford Foundation · The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Nafasi Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Nafasi Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Nafasi Fund?

    Find your warmest path to Nafasi Fund 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 7 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Nafasi’s filings →

    More from the funding graph