· Public charity
National Writing Project Corporation
The NATIONAL WRITING PROJECT CORPORATION seeks to improve the teaching of writing as a voluntary support system for the core staff of the national writing project, a fiscally sponsored project of community initiatives, that engages a national group of leading educators to improve the teaching of writing and learning.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 54% of NATIONAL WRITING PROJECT CORPORATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $17k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $57k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
- $250k+1 grant · $5.1M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| COMMUNITY INITIATIVES | $5,148,156 |
| AUGUSTA UNIVERSITY WRITING PROJECT | $50,400 |
| DENVER WRITING PROJECT | $40,000 |
| NORTHWEST ARKANSAS WRITING PROJECT | $16,800 |
| APPALACHIAN WRITING PROJECT | $8,400 |
| GREATER MADISON WRITING PROJECT | $8,400 |
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 (FY17–23, $155k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +39% since the first grant, against +28% for the ones you funded once.
117 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 112 since wound down; 1 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, 2% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5.1M 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
- UOUniversity of Louisville Research Foundation5× · 2017–2021 · $1.3M · revenue +61%
- CSChico State Enterprises5× · 2017–2022 · $499k · revenue +138%
- RFResearch Foundation of the City University of New York5× · 2017–2022 · $214k · revenue +22%
Funded once
- TITHE INVERNESS INSTITUTEone grant, 2021 · $230k · revenue -64% · 76% of their budget
- DUDREW UNIVERSITYone grant, 2022 · $109k · revenue -1%
- NNEXMAPone grant, 2017 · $70k · revenue -97% · 27% of their budget
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.
The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…
The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…
The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
Provides innovative education in a dynamic urban setting. dedicated to academic excellence and community engagement,we prepare students of diverse backgrounds with the knowledge, skill,and experience to lead meaningful lives as informed…
Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.
The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.
To educate students to be ethical and socially responsible leaders in a global community.
Dartmouth College educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership, through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge.
Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…
As a diverse community of learners, we cultivate integrity, curiosity, connection and resilience.
At Roger Williams University, students are prepared to be thinkers and doers ready to solve challenging problems with innovative solutions. RWU offers robust offerings of undergraduate, graduate and professional programs across eight…
Case Western Reserve University is an independent, research-oriented university with broadly based strengths in health, including medicine, nursing and dentistry; in engineering; in the arts and sciences; and in law, management and social…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is California State University San Marcos Corporation and the most unlike its peers is Friends of Homestead National Historic Park. 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 45 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.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
66 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. 66 of the 207 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 COMMUNITY INITIATIVES ↗
- Who funds University of Louisville Research Foundation ↗
- Who funds Chico State Enterprises ↗
- Who funds THE INVERNESS INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds Research Foundation of the City University of New York ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ↗
- Who funds AUGUSTA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds DREW UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds CAL POLY HUMBOLDT SPONSORED PROGRAMS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Museum of African American History 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: National Collegiate Athletic Association · American Chemical Society · Folds of Honor Foundation · Corporation for Public Broadcasting · Tulsa Community Foundation · The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York · Hispanic Scholarship Fund · Howard Hughes Medical Institute · National Geographic Society · American Council of Learned Societies · Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy Inc · Cornell University
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 Writing Project Corporation 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.
- Museum of African American History Inc — 43% of income from government
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- University of Delaware — 30% of income from government
- Pacific University — 2% of income from government
- George Fox University — 2% of income from government
- Lewis & Clark College — 2% of income from government
- Rider University — 1% of income from government
- Fairfield University — 1% of income from government
- Drew University — 0% 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.