Skip to content
Namati Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Namati Inc

Namati, inc.

$4.6M
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$1.0M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Civil Rights$2.0MInternational$1.5MCommunity Improvement$1.4MEnvironment$614kEducation$105kPublic Benefit$87kHousing & Shelter$10k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $1,936,675, the rows itemized in this filing. The $4,592,398 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $2,655,723 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 · FY2025

  • $50k–250k3 grants · $265k
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.7M
$115,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$91M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 81% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%URBAN REVIVAL INC: $10k → 16%MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER: $672k → 10%THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $60k → 17%CLEAN WATER FUND: $146k → 14%CAMPAIGN FOR MIGRANT WORKER JUSTICE: $10k → 18%BROWN GROVE PRESERVATION GROUP: $8k → 9%PATUXENT RIVERKEEPER: $29k → 11%MARYLAND NONPROFITS: $8k → 19%MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER: $400k → 10%THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $10k → 17%CLEAN WATER FUND: $141k → 14%PATUXENT RIVERKEEPER: $23k → 11%THE UNITED WORKERS ASSOCIATION INC: $29k → 19%NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: $50k → 17%CLEAN WATER FUND: $115k → 14%PATUXENT RIVERKEEPER: $23k → 11%THE UNITED WORKERS ASSOCIATION INC: $25k → 19%NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: $25k → 17%EMPOWER DC: $110k → 14%THE UNITED WORKERS ASSOCIATION INC: $23k → 19%NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: $20k → 17%CLEAN WATER FUND: $75k → 14%NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: $10k → 17%EMPOWER DC: $100k → 14%CLEAN WATER FUND: $23k → 14%EMPOWER DC: $90k → 14%CLEAN WATER FUND: $23k → 14%FUND FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS (FGHR): $1.0M → 14%FUND FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS (FGHR): $1.0M → 14%FUND FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS: $1.0M → 14%FUND FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS: $441k → 14%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.

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.

Sub-Saharan Africa$1.9M · 71% · 13 grants

Stated purpose: CITIZENSHIP · CLIMATE, LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE · GRASSROOTS JUSTICE NETWORK

South America$348k · 13% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: GRASSROOTS JUSTICE NETWORK

East Asia and the Pacific$188k · 7% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: CLIMATE, LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE · GRASSROOTS JUSTICE NETWORK

North America (Canada and Mexico)$177k · 7% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: GRASSROOTS JUSTICE NETWORK · CLIMATE, LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

South Asia$66k · 2% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: CITIZENSHIP

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. 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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.7M · 8 repeat orgs$35k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
4

Total granted

$5.7M
$35k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+2%
+3%

Still filing today

88%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’23’24’25
Community ImprovementEnvironmentPublic BenefitInternationalEducationArts & CultureOther
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

  • FF
    FUND FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS INC
    4× · 2021–2025 · $3.4M · revenue +2%
  • ED
    EMPOWER DC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $300k · revenue +37%
  • NY
    New York University
    5× · 2021–2025 · $105k · revenue +30%

Funded once

  • FL
    FARM LABOR RESEARCH PROJECT
    one grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue -13%
  • UR
    URBAN REVIVAL INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue +258%
  • MA
    MARYLAND ASSOCIATION OF NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
    one grant, 2023 · $8k · revenue +3%
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
National Legal Advocacy Network Dba Glow

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…

Crime & Legal
2
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners

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…

—
3
Community Development Project Inc

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.

Community Improvement
4
National Association of Clean Water Agencies

Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.

—
5
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
6
Actionaid Usa

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…

Social Science
7
Washington Office On Latin America

To advance human rights and social justice in the americas.

International
8
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

Create a more accessible, sustainable, prosperous and livable national capital region by being a discussion forum, expert resource, issue advocate, and catalyst for action.

Public Benefit
9
Greater Washington Urban League Inc

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…

Human Services
10
Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide

Educational & charitable. to provide legal and scientific information to public interest attorneys and scientists in numerous countries.

—
11
National Institute for Workers Rights

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…

Employment
12
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Maryland Association of Non-Profit Organizations; 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.
04the grantee network

11 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. 11 of the 12 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

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

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
6/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FUND FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS INC: $3,441,360 · InternationalFUND FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS INCMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER: $1,071,250 · Community ImprovementMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTEREMPOWER DC: $299,872 · Community ImprovementEMPOWER DC+1 more: $7,600 · Community ImprovementCLEAN WATER FUND: $523,429 · EnvironmentCLEAN WATER…EARTHREPORTS INC: $75,300 · EnvironmentEARTHREPORT…New York University: $105,000 · EducationUnited Workers Association Inc: $76,950 · Public BenefitFARM LABOR RESEARCH PROJECT: $10,000 · Public BenefitTRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $69,800 · OtherURBAN REVIVAL INC: $10,000 · OtherBrown Grove Preservation Group: $7,600 · Arts & Culture
International$3,441,360Community Improvement$1,378,722Environment$598,729Education$105,000Public Benefit$86,950Other$79,800Arts & Culture$7,600

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFUND FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS INC: $3,441,360 over 4y, 7.1% of budgetMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER: $1,071,250 over 2y, 3.1% of budgetCLEAN WATER FUND: $523,429 over 7y, 2.3% of budgetEMPOWER DC: $299,872 over 4y, 5.3% of budgetNew York University: $105,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetUnited Workers Association Inc: $76,950 over 3y, 3.6% of budgetFARM LABOR RESEARCH PROJECT: $10,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetURBAN REVIVAL INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetMARYLAND ASSOCIATION OF NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS: $7,600 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBrown Grove Preservation Group: $7,600 over 1y, 26% 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.

Amalgamated Charitabl…Tides FoundationVanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Amalgamated Charitable Foundation IncDC15× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Namati Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Namati Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →median 27%
  • Maryland Association of Non-Profit Organizations: 27% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
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.
05Through Plinth

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.

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 12 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Namati’s filings →

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 endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home