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

· Public charity

Nami Washington

The mission of NAMI WASHINGTON is to improve the quality of life for all those affected by mental health conditions in washington state through a program of education, support & recovery, and advocacy.

$405k
Granted FY2024still arriving
13
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$132k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

Health$1.4MHousing & Shelter$9k
02FY2024 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k6 grants · $38k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $157k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $208k
$12,750
Median grant
1
States reached
$673k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NAMI THURSTONMASON$132,049
NAMI SPOKANE$75,704
NAMI PIERCE COUNTY$39,518
NAMI EASTSIDE$35,136
NAMI SEATTLE$34,900
NAMI S KING COUNTY$34,779
NAMI JEFFERSON COUNTY$12,750
NAMI WHATCOM COUNTY$6,250
NAMI NORTH CENTRAL WASHINGTON$6,250
NAMI SNOHOMISH AND ISLAND COUNTY$6,250
NAMI YAKIMA$6,250
NAMI WALLA WALLA$6,250
NAMI SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON$6,250
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 (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%NAMI CALIFORNIA: $42k → 12%NAMI COLORADO: $42k → 8%NAMI SEATTLE: $35k → 9%NAMI SW WASHINGTON: $17k → 9%NAMI THURSTONMASON: $132k → 9%HOMES OF COMPASSION: $9k → 10%NAMI JEFFERSON COUNTY: $15k → 11%NAMI SKAGIT COUNTY: $12k → 11%NAMI SPOKANE: $78k → 12%NAMI WALLA WALLA: $6k → 13%NAMI WASHINGTON COAST: $11k → 18%NAMI SEATTLE: $28k → 9%NAMI SW WASHINGTON: $8k → 9%NAMI THURSTONMASON: $112k → 9%NAMI JEFFERSON COUNTY: $13k → 11%NAMI SPOKANE: $76k → 12%NAMI SEATTLE: $27k → 9%NAMI SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON: $6k → 9%NAMI THURSTONMASON: $104k → 9%NAMI SPOKANE: $63k → 12%NAMI SEATTLE: $12k → 9%NAMI THURSTONMASON: $32k → 9%NAMI SPOKANE: $29k → 12%NAMI EASTSIDE: $42k → 9%NAMI EASTSIDE: $35k → 9%NAMI EASTSIDE: $28k → 9%NAMI EASTSIDE: $19k → 9%NAMI S KING COUNTY: $57k → 9%NAMI S KING COUNTY: $35k → 9%NAMI S KING COUNTY: $28k → 9%NAMI S KING COUNTY: $14k → 9%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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 10 repeat orgs$134k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +64% since the first grant, against +8% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
5

Total granted

$1.3M
$115k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+64%
+8%

Still filing today

90%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $19k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24
HealthHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • NT
    NAMI THURSTON MASON
    4× · 2021–2024 · $380k · revenue +97% · 64% of their budget
  • NS
    NAMI SPOKANE
    4× · 2021–2024 · $245k · revenue +23%
  • NE
    NAMI Eastside
    4× · 2021–2024 · $124k · revenue +68%

Funded once

  • NC
    NAMI California
    one grant, 2022 · $42k · revenue -32%
  • NC
    NAMI COLORADO
    one grant, 2022 · $42k · revenue +8%
  • NS
    NAMI SKAGIT COUNTY
    one grant, 2021 · $12k
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
Nami Northwest

Nami is a tri-county voice for mental illness. it builds a community of hope for those with mental illness and their families, thru support, education and advocacy.

Arts & Culture
2
Nami Pitt County

Mental health

Health
3
Nami White Mountains Az

We represent a community of people who are committed to relieving the pain and suffering of families and peers whose lives are impacted by a Mental Health Condition. The NAMI approach has been proven to work across the United States! NAMI…

Health
4
Nami Monterey County

NAMI Monterey County provides advocacy, education, support, and public awareness so that all individuals and families affected by mental illness can build better lives.

—
5
Nami Rhode Island

The mission of NAMI Rhode Island is to educate the public about mental illness; to offer resources and support to all whose lives are touched by mental illness; to advocate at every level to ensure the rights and dignity of those with…

Health
6
Nami San Joaquin County

Nami of san joaquin county provides education, support and advocacy to families and individuals whose lives have been affected by serious mental illness.to promote wellness, recovery, and resiliance through support, education and advocacy.

—
7
Nami Sacramento

NAMI Sacramento provides peer-led education programs, support groups, outreach and a welcoming community for people living with mental illness and their families or caregivers. Our goal is to promote anyone seeking help into an improved…

Health
8
Nami-Billings

Nami-Billings works to educate, advocate and support all those affected by mental illness.

Health
9
Nami-Amador

NAMI Amador is a grassroots, family and consumer self-help support and advocacy organization dedicated to improving the lives of people with severe mental illnesses, i.e., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (manic depression), clinical…

Health
10
National Alliance for Mentally Ill of Champlain Valley Inc

We provide advocacy and support for the mentally ill and their families. This personalized help is provided without charge and includes various support services aimed at assisting and encouraging those affected to better cope with their…

Health
11
Nami Sonoma County

NAMI Sonoma County's mission is to build better lives for individuals and families affected by mental illness throughout Sonoma County by providing education, support, and advocacy.

—
12
Nami National

NAMI provides advocacy, education, support and public awareness so that all individuals and families affected by mental illness can build better lives.See Schedule O

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Nami of Whatcom County; the most unlike its peers is Kitsap Homes of Compassion. 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

12 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. 12 of the 18 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.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NAMI THURSTON MASON: $380,493 · OtherNAMI THURSTON MASONNAMI SPOKANE: $244,660 · OtherNAMI SPOKANEYAKIMA ADVOCATES FOR THE MENTALLY ILL: $64,465 · OtherYAKIMA ADVOCATES FOR THE MENTALLY ILLNAMI California: $41,673 · OtherNAMI SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON: $31,098 · OtherNATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS JEFFERSON COUNTY: $27,899 · Other+5 more: $42,071 · OtherNational Alliance for the Mentally ILL Pierce County: $141,942 · HealthNational Alliance for the Mentally ILL Pierce C…NAMI SOUTH KING COUNTY: $133,128 · HealthNAMI SOUTH KING COUNTYNAMI Eastside: $123,659 · HealthNAMI EastsideNAMI Seattle: $101,578 · HealthNAMI SeattleNAMI of Whatcom County: $59,598 · HealthNAMI of Whatcom CountyNAMI COLORADO: $41,673 · HealthNAMI COLORADOKITSAP HOMES OF COMPASSION: $8,650 · Housing & Shelter
Other$832,359Health$601,578Housing & Shelter$8,650

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNAMI THURSTON MASON: $380,493 over 4y, 64% of budgetNAMI SPOKANE: $244,660 over 4y, 23% of budgetNational Alliance for the Mentally ILL Pierce County: $141,942 over 4y, 93% of budgetNAMI SOUTH KING COUNTY: $133,128 over 4y, 60% of budgetNAMI Eastside: $123,659 over 4y, 7.8% of budgetNAMI Seattle: $101,578 over 4y, 5.4% of budgetYAKIMA ADVOCATES FOR THE MENTALLY ILL: $64,465 over 3y, 16% of budgetNAMI of Whatcom County: $59,598 over 3y, 26% of budgetNAMI California: $41,673 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetNAMI COLORADO: $41,673 over 1y, 6.5% of budgetNAMI SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON: $31,098 over 3y, 3.2% of budgetKITSAP HOMES OF COMPASSION: $8,650 over 1y, 0.7% 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.

  • Who funds NAMI THURSTON MASON ↗
  • Who funds NAMI SPOKANE ↗
  • Who funds National Alliance for the Mentally ILL Pierce County ↗
  • Who funds NAMI SOUTH KING COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds NAMI Eastside ↗
  • Who funds NAMI Seattle ↗
  • Who funds YAKIMA ADVOCATES FOR THE MENTALLY ILL ↗
  • Who funds NAMI of Whatcom County ↗
  • Who funds NAMI California ↗
  • Who funds NAMI COLORADO ↗
  • Who funds NAMI SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON ↗
  • Who funds KITSAP HOMES OF COMPASSION ↗

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.

NAMI NationalPuget Sound Energy Fo…The Norcliffe Foundat…Network for GoodAmerican Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
NAMI NationalVA30.4× affinity12 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: NAMI National · Puget Sound Energy Foundation · The Norcliffe Foundation · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Nami Washington funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Nami Washington. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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.

    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 18 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 Nami Washington’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