Loading…
· Public charity
NATIONAL RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION
To strengthen state associations.
$61M
Granted FY2025
49
Grants
49
Communities
$2.0M
Largest
01What you fund
01
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 53% of NATIONAL RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2020
north
2021
training technicalwastewater systemssmallmemberseducationtechnical trainingenhance
2022
training technicalwastewater systemsmemberstechnical trainingeducationsewerprofessional
2023
training technicalwastewater systemssmallmemberseducationtechnical trainingsewer
2024
training technicalwastewater systemsmemberseducationtechnical trainingprofessionalenhance
2025
training technicalwastewater systemsmemberssmalleducationenhancetechnical training
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2025 · 49 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
$1,266,316
Median grant
49
States reached
$89M
Total assets
Largest grants
- CALIFORNIA RURAL WATER ASSOC$2,025,432
- MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOC$1,851,153
- TEXAS RURAL WATER ASSOC$1,715,841
- SOUTH DAKOTA ASSOC OF RURAL WATER$1,618,628
- KANSAS RURAL WATER ASSOC$1,566,682
- SOUTH CAROLINA RURAL WATER ASSOC$1,553,784
- KENTUCKY RURAL WATER ASSOC$1,544,929
- FLORIDA RURAL WATER ASSOC$1,509,761
- MISSOURI RURAL WATER ASSOC$1,495,123
- MISSISSIPPI RURAL WATER ASSOC$1,490,844
- COLORADO RURAL WATER ASSOC$1,473,726
- NEW YORK RURAL WATER ASSOC$1,440,218
- ALLIANCE OF INDIANA RURAL WATER ASSOC$1,430,357
- NORTH DAKOTA RURAL WATER SYSTEM ASSOC$1,421,234
- MONTANA RURAL WATER ASSOC$1,417,279
02The need
04
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.
show:
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13% — the area typically sits at 10%. 80% of your dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
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.
97%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$288M · 51 repeat orgs$8.2M to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +60% since the first grant, against +23% for the ones you funded once.
51 repeat relationships — 48 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
51
10
Total granted
$288M
$7.0M
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+60%
+23%
Still filing today
92%
10%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.3M went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Public BenefitEnvironmentCommunity ImprovementEmploymentEducationOther
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
- CRCALIFORNIA RURAL WATER ASSOC6× · 2020–2025 · $8.5M · revenue +115%
- MRMINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOC6× · 2020–2025 · $8.2M · revenue +87% · 35% of their budget
- MRMISSOURI RURAL WATER ASSOC6× · 2020–2025 · $8.1M · revenue +38% · 37% of their budget
Funded once
- AOALLIANCE OF INDIANA RURAL WATER ASSOCone grant, 2020 · $1.0M
- MRMONTANA RURAL WATER ASSOCone grant, 2020 · $898k
- MRMONTANA RURAL WATER ASSOCone grant, 2021 · $883k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
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.
1
American Water Works Association
As a section of the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the Rocky Mountain Section is dedicated to carrying out the mission of the AWWA emphasizing areas of interest to the water industry, such as education, dissemination of…
Public Benefit
2
American Water Works Association
American Water Works Association provides a cooperation of its members in four districts of Ohio for the purpose of establishing better water.
Public Benefit
3
American Water Works Association
Dedicated to providing water education, training and leadership to protect public health and the environment.
Public Benefit
4
American Water Works Association
Providing solutions to effectively manage water, the world's most vital resource.
Public Benefit
5
American Water Works Association
The purpose of the scawwa is to promote the public health, safety and welfare by advocating drinking water of superior quality and sufficient quantity and by developing and furthering the understanding of technology, science, education and…
Public Benefit
6
American Water Works Association -
Provide educational services to water industry professionals.
Public Benefit
7
Az Water Association
Advocate for arizonas water through bold leadership, connecting professionals, providing education, and inspiring environmental stewardship.
Environment
8
California Water Environment Association
To empower, educate, and connect water professionals to protect public health and the environment.
Environment
9
American Water Resources Association
Provide its members and the general public with activities, programs and services that facilitate the advancement of water resources research, planning, development, management and education.
Environment
10
New Hampshire Water Works Association Inc
To improve municipal water supply service in the State of New Hampshire by discussion of all water supply issues and problems offering education and training providing legislative advocacy and networking opportunities.
Public Benefit
11
WateReuse Association
To advance the beneficial and efficient use of water resources.
—
12
Kansas Section American Water Works
Water related education for ks water professionals
—
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Alaska Rural Water Association and the most unlike its peers is Alliance of Indiana Rural Water. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 32 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
Closures · last 5 years
The orgs you fund almost never close — 6% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.
orgs you fund
6%
3/54
the rest of the field
11%
206,163/1,819,511
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.
05the grantee network
50 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
43
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
29
Early backer (in before they grew)
48/50
Grantees still filing
47/50
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$157,825,342Public Benefit$77,388,840Environment$36,345,492Community Improvement$14,483,738Employment$5,453,947Education$4,552,437
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 CALIFORNIA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds TEXAS RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds KENTUCKY RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds KANSAS RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds MISSISSIPPI RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds ARKANSAS RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds ILLINOIS RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds COLORADO RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds LOUISIANA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds NORTH CAROLINA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds FLORIDA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds ALABAMA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds SOUTH CAROLINA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE OF INDIANA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds OKLAHOMA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds GEORGIA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds TENNESSEE ASSOC OF UTILITIES ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds IDAHO RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds OREGON ASSOC OF WATER UTILITIES ↗
- Who funds WISONSIN RURAL WATER ASSO ↗
- Who funds HAWAII RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds WEST VIRGINIA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds VIRGINIA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds NEBRASKA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds SOUTH DAKOTA ASSOC OF RURAL WATER ↗
- Who funds RURAL WATER ASSOC OF UTAH ↗
- Who funds PENNSYLVANIA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds OHIO RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds NORTH DAKOTA RURAL WATER SYSTEMS ASSOC ↗
- Who funds ALASKA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds IOWA RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds MASS RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds DELAWARE RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds NEW JERSEY WATER ASSOC ↗
- Who funds VERMONT RURAL WATER ASSOC ↗
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Amazonsmile FoundationWA0.4× affinity7 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: 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 organisation NATIONAL RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION 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.
2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
- Delaware Rural Water Association — 22% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
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. 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.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: ALASKA RURAL WATER ASSOC.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
medium risk
~4 months of operating runway; revenue held over 7 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
7 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 920175291 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on ALASKA RURAL WATER ASSOC, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- WatchFinancial stability— Roughly 4 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue held over the period.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 98% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to National Rural Water Association?
Find your warmest path to National Rural Water Association through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines