· Public charity
National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directorsdba Nastad
Nastad's mission is to advance the health and dignity of people living with and impacted by hiv/aids, viral hepatitis, and intersecting epidemics by strengthening governmental public health and leveraging community partnerships.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k21 grants · $729k
- $50k–250k74 grants · $7.4M
- $250k+2 grants · $833k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA | $421,828 |
| ACADEMYHEALTH | $411,433 |
| GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY | $237,238 |
| UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI | $218,192 |
| UNIVERSITY MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY | $163,019 |
| INDIANA RECOVERY ALLIANCE | $160,000 |
| WECARETN | $150,000 |
| NEXT HARM REDUCTION | $150,000 |
| RIVER VALLEY ORGANIZING | $150,000 |
| FLORIDA HARM REDUCTION COLLECTIVE INC | $150,000 |
| POWER4STL | $150,000 |
| BLUE MOUNTAIN HEART TO HEART | $148,008 |
| CONFLUENCE HRH413 | $135,000 |
| IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH | $131,696 |
| COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRON | $131,061 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY22–24, $2.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 52% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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
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.
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.
91 repeat relationships — 77 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
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 FY2024, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $680k 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
- AACADEMYHEALTH4× · 2021–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +47%
- BMBlue Mountain Heart to Heart3× · 2022–2024 · $663k · revenue +39%
Northwestern University4× · 2019–2022 · $631k · revenue +34%
Funded once
JSI RESEARCH & TRAINING INSTITUTE INCgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $32k · revenue +99%- MHMental Health Coalition Incgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +489%
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.
To increase access to health care, empower people to protect themselves, and educate each other to reduce harm in our communities.
To provide harm reduction without judgement to reduce the negative consequences of drug use and promote wellness.
Northern Nevada Hopes provides affordable, high-quality, medical, behavioral health, and support services for all. We are dedicated to building a healthier community by providing coordinated care and support for individuals and family…
Haart is a non-profit organization dedicated to serving the community by reducing the harmful effects of opiate and opioid abuse and dependence, and opiate combined with poly-substance abuse, on individuals and their families. haart's…
Northern Valley Harm Reduction Coalition is a 501c3 Non-Profit and Physician Lead Harm Reduction Program. Our program provides life saving Naloxone, Overdose Reversal Training, Safe Use Supplies, Syringe Disposal, HIV/HCV Testing, Drug…
Harm Reduction Therapy Center is dedicated to providing treatment to people with co-occurring substance misuse and mental illness, and training mental health, drug treatment, and social service providers who work with complex…
To seek justice through health and housing.
To provide health empowerment services to injection drug users and prevent the spread of hiv.
Harm Reduction Education
To spread awareness of the importance of harm reduction and to reduce stigma by educating,supporting,networking and providing harm-reduction services.
The Down East Aids Network and the Health Equity Alliance empowers marginalized communities to improve their health and wellbeing and affect social and cultural change by facilitating collaboration, education, advocacy, and action
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Harm Reduction Coalition and the most unlike its peers is River Valley Organizing. 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.
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 17 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 7% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 5% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
91 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 91 of the 108 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 AIDS UNITED ↗
- Who funds ACADEMYHEALTH ↗
- Who funds Blue Mountain Heart to Heart ↗
- Who funds Northwestern University ↗
- Who funds University of Miami ↗
- Who funds POINTS OF DISTRIBUTION ↗
- Who funds Howard Brown Health Center ↗
- Who funds Western North Carolina AIDS Project Inc ↗
- Who funds GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL COALITION OF STD DIRECTORS ↗
- Who funds Harm Reduction Michigan ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN AIDS COALITION ↗
- Who funds IOWA HARM REDUCTION COALITION ↗
- Who funds Virginia Harm Reduction Coalition ↗
- Who funds CONNECTICUT HARM REDUCTION ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds MISSOULA AIDS FUNDS INC DBA OPEN AID ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL HEALTH OFFICIALS ↗
- Who funds COUNCIL OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL EPIDEMIOLOGISTS INC ↗
- Who funds HEPATITUS EDUCATION PROJECT ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY AND CITY HEALTH OFFICALS ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL HARM REDUCTION COALITION ↗
- Who funds Indiana Recovery Alliance Inc ↗
- Who funds MEN & WOMEN IN PRISON MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds Wecaretn ↗
- Who funds NEXT HARM REDUCTION INC ↗
- Who funds FLORIDA HARM REDUCTION COLLECTIVE INC ↗
- Who funds POWER4STL ↗
- Who funds Urban Coalition for HIVAIDS Prevention Services ↗
- Who funds HIPS ↗
- Who funds Rebel Recovery Florida Inc ↗
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: AIDS United · National Harm Reduction Coalition · Broadway Caresequity Fights AIDS Inc · Elton John AIDS Foundation Inc · Direct Relief · The Chicago Community Trust · Vital Strategies Inc · Emory University · Foundation to Promote Open Society · National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Inc · Drug Policy Alliance · Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
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 National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directorsdba Nastad 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.
- Stabbin Wagon — 91% of income from government
- Community Outreach Through Radical Empowerment — 70% of income from government
- Jsi Research & Training Institute Inc — 69% of income from government
- Connecticut Harm Reduction Alliance Inc — 43% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- Rebel Recovery Florida Inc — 8% of income from government
- University of Miami — 5% of income from government
- Health Care for the Homeless Inc — 2% 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.