Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersAlso receives grants — funding profile →
Plinth

· Public charity

National Rural Water Association

To cultivate opportunities for state associations to be successful for the benefits of their memebers.

$61M
Granted FY2025still arriving
49
Grants FY2025still arriving
49
States reached
$2.0M
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2025.

Environment$282MCommunity Improvement$7.0MPublic Benefit$5.5MOther$0
02FY2025 · 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
RecipientAmount
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
03

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%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 80% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.9M → 11%MONTANA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 14%CALIFORNIA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $2.0M → 12%NEW YORK RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 11%TEXAS RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.7M → 10%SOUTH CAROLINA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.6M → 16%ARKANSAS RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 12%FLORIDA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 19%ALABAMA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 18%KANSAS RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.6M → 9%MISSOURI RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 17%OREGON ASSOC OF WATER UTILITIES: $1.4M → 13%NORTH CAROLINA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 13%COLORADO RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 15%ALLIANCE OF INDIANA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 8%WEST VIRGINIA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.3M → 10%ILLINOIS RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 16%MISSISSIPPI RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 23%NORTH DAKOTA RURAL WATER SYSTEM ASSOC: $1.4M → 10%SOUTH DAKOTA ASSOC OF RURAL WATER: $1.6M → 10%LOUISIANA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 21%KENTUCKY RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.6M → 18%MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 11%CALIFORNIA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 12%NEW YORK RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 11%TEXAS RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.7M → 10%ARKANSAS RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 12%ALABAMA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 18%KANSAS RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 9%MISSOURI RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 17%COLORADO RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 15%ALLIANCE OF INDIANA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 8%ILLINOIS RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 16%MISSISSIPPI RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 23%LOUISIANA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 21%KENTUCKY RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 18%MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 11%CALIFORNIA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 12%TEXAS RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 10%ARKANSAS RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 12%KANSAS RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 9%MISSOURI RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.5M → 17%ILLINOIS RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 16%MISSISSIPPI RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 23%LOUISIANA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.3M → 21%KENTUCKY RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 18%CALIFORNIA RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 12%MISSOURI RURAL WATER ASSOC: $1.4M → 17%0%20%40%50%more need →
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 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

AK
ME
VT
NH
WA
ID
MT
ND
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
SD
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
KY
WV
VA
MD
DE
AZ
NM
KS
AR
TN
NC
SC
DC
HI
OK
LA
MS
AL
GA
TX
FL

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.

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$8.0M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +53% since the first grant, against -11% 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
9

Total granted

$288M
$6.7M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+53%
-11%

Still filing today

92%
11%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.3M went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
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

  • CR
    CALIFORNIA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION
    6× · 2020–2025 · $8.5M · revenue +26%
  • MR
    MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION
    6× · 2020–2025 · $8.2M · revenue +47% · 35% of their budget
  • MR
    MISSOURI RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION
    6× · 2020–2025 · $8.1M · revenue +44% · 37% of their budget

Funded once

  • AO
    ALLIANCE OF INDIANA RURAL WATER ASSOC
    one grant, 2020 · $1.0M
  • MR
    MONTANA RURAL WATER ASSOC
    one grant, 2020 · $898k
  • MS
    MONTANA SECTION AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
    one 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
National Rural Water Association

To cultivate opportunities for state associations to be successful for the benefits of their memebers.

—
2
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
3
WateReuse Association

The mission of WateReuse is to educate the public on the importance of reusing water and to advocate for laws, policies and funding to increase water reuse in communities across the United States.

—
4
American Water Works Association - Hawaii Section

Provide educational services to water industry professionals.

Public Benefit
5
American Water Works Association North Carolina Section

Dedicated to providing water education, training and leadership to protect public health and the environment.

Public Benefit
6
American Water Works Association Alabama-Mississippi Section

Advancement and dissemination of knowledge concerning the water works industry.

Public Benefit
7
Nebraska Water Environment Assn

Professional educational organization committed to public education, training and providing leadership in water quality policy development.

Environment
8
American Water Works Association Southwest Section Inc

To advance knowledge and share information regarding the drinking waterindustry.

Public Benefit
9
American Water Works Association Rocky Mountain Section

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
10
Western Dakota Regional Water System

To provide a source of water from the missouri river or any other feasible source to its members to construct, build and own plats, facilities and pipelines for the transporting of said water to its members.

Public Benefit
11
Alaska Water Wastewater Management Association (Awwma)

AWWMA works to provide opportunities that bring knowledge, expertise, and technology to water and wastewater industry professionals in Alaska. Our conferences and workshops are attended by a diverse group of professionals from large and…

Environment
12
Alabama's Water Environment Association

Advancing knowledge of alabama's water environment. awea is commited to serve alabama's water professionals by providing leadership, education, and cultivation of ideas that support and protect alabama's clean water environment.

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Iowa Rural Water Association and the most unlike its peers is Alliance of Indiana Rural Water Foundation. 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 FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%0%<5yr14%2%5–10yr19%8%10–20yr16%56%20–35yr13%31%35–55yr16%2%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%0%<5yr14%2%5–10yr19%9%10–20yr16%53%20–35yr13%37%35–55yr16%0%55yr+

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 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
6%
3/54
the rest of the field
13%
240,395/1,819,511

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.

04the grantee network

50 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. 50 of the 61 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.

43
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
26
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

MISSOURI RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $8,079,873 · OtherTEXAS RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $7,959,050 · OtherKENTUCKY RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $7,713,413 · OtherARKANSAS RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $7,438,398 · OtherIllinois Rural Water Association — $7,374,186 · OtherCOLORADO RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $7,344,868 · OtherNEW YORK RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $7,331,270 · OtherLOUISIANA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $7,304,788 · OtherNORTH CAROLINA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $7,063,246 · OtherALABAMA RURAL WATER ASSN INC — $6,803,546 · OtherOKLAHOMA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $6,404,799 · OtherGEORGIA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $6,376,056 · OtherOREGON ASSOCIATION OF WATER UTILITIES INC — $6,158,071 · OtherWest Virginia Rural Water Association Inc — $5,731,206 · OtherNEBRASKA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $5,591,069 · OtherSOUTH DAKOTA ASSOCIATION OF RURAL WATER SYSTEMS — $5,538,444 · OtherPENNSYLVANIA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $5,479,921 · OtherOHIO RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $5,476,382 · Other+19 more — $36,656,756 · Other+19 moreMINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $8,180,424 · Public BenefitMINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOCIA…Kansas Rural Water Association — $7,696,200 · Public BenefitKansas Rural Water Associatio…Mississippi Rural Water Association Inc — $7,468,380 · Public BenefitMississippi Rural Water Assoc…FLORIDA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $7,020,845 · Public BenefitFLORIDA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATI…MICHIGAN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $6,288,877 · Public BenefitMICHIGAN RURAL WATER ASSOCIAT…IDAHO RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $6,193,398 · Public BenefitIDAHO RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION…WISCONSIN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $6,096,769 · Public BenefitWISCONSIN RURAL WATER ASSOCIA…Virginia Rural Water Association Inc — $5,670,755 · Public BenefitVirginia Rural Water Associat…RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION OF UTAH — $5,499,183 · Public BenefitRURAL WATER ASSOCIATION OF UT…IOWA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $5,187,703 · Public BenefitIOWA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATIONVermont Rural Water Association — $4,505,473 · Public BenefitVermont Rural Water Associati…MARYLAND RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $4,235,655 · Public BenefitMARYLAND RURAL WATER ASSOCIAT…RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION OF ARIZONA — $3,345,178 · Public BenefitCALIFORNIA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $8,527,303 · EnvironmentCALIFORNIA RU…SOUTH CAROLINA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $6,708,325 · EnvironmentSOUTH CAROLIN…ALLIANCE OF INDIANA RURAL WATER FOUNDATION — $6,420,825 · EnvironmentALLIANCE OF I…HAWAII RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $5,751,833 · EnvironmentHAWAII RURAL …ALASKA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $5,271,729 · EnvironmentALASKA RURAL …Wyoming Rural Water Foundation — $3,665,477 · EnvironmentWyoming Rural…TENNESSEE ASSOCIATION OF UTILITY DISTRICTS — $6,306,836 · Community ImprovementMass Rural Water Association Inc — $4,687,348 · Community ImprovementGRANITE STATE RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $3,489,554 · Community ImprovementNORTH DAKOTA RURAL WATER SYSTEMS ASSOCIATION — $5,453,947 · EmploymentNEW JERSEY WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $4,552,437 · Education
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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetCALIFORNIA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $8,527,303 over 6y, 24% of budgetMINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $8,180,424 over 6y, 35% of budgetMISSOURI RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $8,079,873 over 6y, 37% of budgetTEXAS RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $7,959,050 over 6y, 19% of budgetKENTUCKY RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $7,713,413 over 6y, 37% of budgetKansas Rural Water Association — $7,696,200 over 6y, 43% of budgetMississippi Rural Water Association Inc — $7,468,380 over 6y, 50% of budgetARKANSAS RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $7,438,398 over 6y, 45% of budgetIllinois Rural Water Association — $7,374,186 over 6y, 58% of budgetCOLORADO RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $7,344,868 over 6y, 55% of budgetNEW YORK RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $7,331,270 over 6y, 50% of budgetLOUISIANA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $7,304,788 over 6y, 45% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $7,063,246 over 6y, 36% of budgetFLORIDA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $7,020,845 over 6y, 21% of budgetALABAMA RURAL WATER ASSN INC — $6,803,546 over 6y, 46% of budgetSOUTH CAROLINA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $6,708,325 over 6y, 51% of budgetOKLAHOMA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $6,404,799 over 6y, 22% of budgetGEORGIA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $6,376,056 over 6y, 30% of budgetTENNESSEE ASSOCIATION OF UTILITY DISTRICTS — $6,306,836 over 5y, 27% of budgetMICHIGAN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $6,288,877 over 6y, 47% of budgetIDAHO RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $6,193,398 over 6y, 47% of budgetOREGON ASSOCIATION OF WATER UTILITIES INC — $6,158,071 over 6y, 58% of budgetWISCONSIN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $6,096,769 over 6y, 46% of budgetHAWAII RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $5,751,833 over 6y, 97% of budgetWest Virginia Rural Water Association Inc — $5,731,206 over 6y, 49% of budgetVirginia Rural Water Association Inc — $5,670,755 over 6y, 85% of budgetNEBRASKA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $5,591,069 over 6y, 79% of budgetSOUTH DAKOTA ASSOCIATION OF RURAL WATER SYSTEMS — $5,538,444 over 5y, 46% of budgetRURAL WATER ASSOCIATION OF UTAH — $5,499,183 over 6y, 31% of budgetPENNSYLVANIA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $5,479,921 over 6y, 33% of budgetOHIO RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $5,476,382 over 6y, 63% of budgetNORTH DAKOTA RURAL WATER SYSTEMS ASSOCIATION — $5,453,947 over 6y, 62% of budgetALASKA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $5,271,729 over 6y, 98% of budgetIOWA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $5,187,703 over 6y, 50% of budgetMass Rural Water Association Inc — $4,687,348 over 6y, 94% of budgetDELAWARE RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $4,652,958 over 6y, 53% of budgetNEW JERSEY WATER ASSOCIATION INC — $4,552,437 over 6y, 63% of budgetVermont Rural Water Association — $4,505,473 over 6y, 58% of budgetMONTANA RURAL WATER SYSTEMS INC — $4,452,523 over 4y, 61% of budgetEVERGREEN RURAL WATER OF WASHINGTON — $4,423,561 over 4y, 60% of budgetMARYLAND RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $4,235,655 over 6y, 58% of budgetMAINE RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $3,910,280 over 6y, 28% of budgetGRANITE STATE RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $3,489,554 over 6y, 80% of budgetRURAL WATER ASSOCIATION OF ARIZONA — $3,345,178 over 5y, 93% of budgetNEVADA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION — $2,445,881 over 5y, 60% of budgetATLANTIC STATES WATER & WASTEWATER ASSOC — $2,094,586 over 6y, 88% of budgetWyoming Association of Rural Water Systems — $553,920 over 1y, 39% of budgetWATER SYSTEMS COUNCIL — $100,000 over 2y, 5.6% of budget
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 ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds MISSOURI RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds KENTUCKY RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds Kansas Rural Water Association ↗
  • Who funds Mississippi Rural Water Association Inc ↗
  • Who funds ARKANSAS RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds Illinois Rural Water Association ↗
  • Who funds COLORADO RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds NEW YORK RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds LOUISIANA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds NORTH CAROLINA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds FLORIDA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds ALABAMA RURAL WATER ASSN INC ↗
  • Who funds SOUTH CAROLINA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds ALLIANCE OF INDIANA RURAL WATER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds OKLAHOMA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds GEORGIA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds TENNESSEE ASSOCIATION OF UTILITY DISTRICTS ↗
  • Who funds MICHIGAN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds IDAHO RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds OREGON ASSOCIATION OF WATER UTILITIES INC ↗
  • Who funds WISCONSIN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds HAWAII RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds West Virginia Rural Water Association Inc ↗
  • Who funds Virginia Rural Water Association Inc ↗
  • Who funds NEBRASKA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds SOUTH DAKOTA ASSOCIATION OF RURAL WATER SYSTEMS ↗
  • Who funds RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION OF UTAH ↗
  • Who funds PENNSYLVANIA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds OHIO RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds NORTH DAKOTA RURAL WATER SYSTEMS ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds ALASKA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds IOWA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds Mass Rural Water Association Inc ↗
  • Who funds DELAWARE RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds NEW JERSEY WATER ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Vermont Rural Water Association ↗

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 Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA0.6× 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 organization 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.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 59%
  • Oregon Association of Water Utilities Inc — 97% of income from government
  • Florida Rural Water Association Inc — 59% of income from government
  • Delaware Rural Water Association — 24% of income from government
  • Vermont Rural Water Association — 16% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
32report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
2rely 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: 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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 61 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

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 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