· Public charity
Namati Inc
Namati, inc.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 5 grants below total $1,936,675 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $4,592,398 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $2,655,723 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 · FY2025
- $50k–250k3 grants · $265k
- $250k+2 grants · $1.7M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| FUND FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS (FGHR) | $1,000,000 |
| MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER | $671,675 |
| CLEAN WATER FUND | $115,000 |
| EMPOWER DC | $100,000 |
| NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW | $50,000 |
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 81% 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 — $2.7M on the FY2025 return
Schedule F, as filed: 5 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: CITIZENSHIP · CLIMATE, LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE · GRASSROOTS JUSTICE NETWORK
Stated purpose: GRASSROOTS JUSTICE NETWORK
Stated purpose: CLIMATE, LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE · GRASSROOTS JUSTICE NETWORK
Stated purpose: GRASSROOTS JUSTICE NETWORK · CLIMATE, LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Stated purpose: CITIZENSHIP
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.
8 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.
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 FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- FFFUND FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS INC4× · 2021–2025 · $3.4M · revenue +2%
- EDEMPOWER DC4× · 2022–2025 · $300k · revenue +37%
- NYNew York University5× · 2021–2025 · $105k · revenue +30%
Funded once
- FLFARM LABOR RESEARCH PROJECTone grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue -13%
- URURBAN REVIVAL INCgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue +258%
- BGBrown Grove Preservation Groupone grant, 2023 · $8k · 26% of their budget
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 National Legal Advocacy Network d/b/a Grassroots Law & Organizing for Workers is a legal non-profit organization dedicated to using legal strategies as a tool to build power for marginalized workers and create systemic change through…
Founded in 1889, the national association of regulatory utility commisioners (naruc) is a non-profit organization dedicated to representing the state public service commisions who regulate the utilities that provide essential services such…
Takeroot justice provides legal, participatory research and policy support to strengthen the work of grassroots and community-based groups in new york city to dismantle racial, economic and social oppression.
Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
To advance human rights and social justice in the americas.
Create a more accessible, sustainable, prosperous and livable national capital region by being a discussion forum, expert resource, issue advocate, and catalyst for action.
The greater washington urban league ("gwul or "the league") envisions a dc metro area inclusive of flourishing, multi-generational, black communities where members thrive without the hindrance of systemic minoritization and racial…
Educational & charitable. to provide legal and scientific information to public interest attorneys and scientists in numerous countries.
The national institute for workers' rights (the institute) mission is to advance workers' rights through research, thought leadership, and education for policymakers, advocates, and the public. the institute will achieve its mission…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Maryland Association of Non-Profit Organizations and the most unlike its peers is Brown Grove Preservation Group. 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. 11 of the 12 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 FUND FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER ↗
- Who funds CLEAN WATER FUND ↗
- Who funds EMPOWER DC ↗
- Who funds New York University ↗
- Who funds United Workers Association Inc ↗
- Who funds EARTHREPORTS INC ↗
- Who funds FARM LABOR RESEARCH PROJECT ↗
- Who funds URBAN REVIVAL INC ↗
- Who funds Brown Grove Preservation Group ↗
- Who funds MARYLAND ASSOCIATION OF NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ↗
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: Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Tides Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Namati 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Maryland Association of Non-Profit Organizations — 27% 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 Namati Inc?
Find your warmest path to Namati 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.