Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersMostly funded, not a grantmaker — see who funds it →
Plinth

· Public charity

Partnership for Americas Children

The mission of the partnership for america's children (the partnership) is to engage, empower, and invest in a network of state and local child advocates who advance transformative, systemic, and equitable policy change for the well-being of every child across the nation.

$391k
Granted FY2024still arriving
14
Grants FY2024still arriving
12
States reached
$64k
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 FY2018–2024.

Crime & Legal$8.2MHuman Services$1.1MCivil Rights$946kCommunity Improvement$154kPhilanthropy$100kYouth Development$98kEducation$90k
02FY2024 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $217k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $169k
$25,000
Median grant
12
States reached
$1.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
COALITION ON HUMAN NEEDS$64,000
CHILDREN'S ACTION ALLIANCE$55,000
FOSTERCLUB INC$50,000
FOSTER SUCCESS$32,000
KENTUCKY YOUTH ADVOCATES$30,000
VOICES FOR VERMONT'S CHILDREN INC$30,000
YOUTH LAW CENTER$25,000
CHILDREN'S LAW CENTER INC$25,000
HAWAII CHILDREN'S ACTION NETWORK$25,000
TEXAS NETWORK OF YOUTH SERVICES$15,000
IDAHO VOICES FOR CHILDREN$15,000
FOSTER CARE ALUMNI OF AMERICA$10,000
NATIONAL FOSTER YOUTH INSTITUTE$10,000
THE CHILDREN'S VILLAGE$5,400
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:

Your human-services grants (FY18–24, $3.8M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 46% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%JANNUS INC: $40k → 8%PUBLIC CITIZENS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH: $130k → 22%CHILDREN NOW: $51k → 10%THE CHILDREN'S PARTNERSHIP: $90k → 14%THE CHILDREN'S VILLAGE: $1.2M → 9%THE CHILDREN'S AGENDA: $182k → 14%TEXAS NETWORK OF YOUTH SERVICES: $45k → 10%ARKANSAS ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES: $90k → 17%MICHIGANS CHILDREN: $45k → 16%KANSAS ACTION FOR CHILDREN: $81k → 14%CARING COMMUNITIES: $5k → 10%KIDS FORWARD: $130k → 10%CONNECTICUT VOICES FOR CHILDREN: $90k → 11%FOSTER SUCCESS: $32k → 16%MOMSRISING TOGETHER: $9k → 9%ALASKA CHILDREN'S TRUST: $25k → 22%VOICES FOR ILLINOIS CHILDREN: $45k → 14%ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN OF NEW JERSEY: $100k → 16%CHILDREN FIRST PA: $40k → 22%CHILDREN NOW: $40k → 10%THE CHILDREN'S PARTNERSHIP: $67k → 14%THE CHILDREN'S VILLAGE: $316k → 9%THE CHILDREN'S AGENDA: $65k → 14%ARKANSAS ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES: $61k → 17%MICHIGAN'S CHILDREN: $20k → 16%KANSAS ACTION FOR CHILDREN: $47k → 14%KIDS FORWARD: $65k → 10%CONNECTICUTT ASSOCATION FOR HUMAN SERVICES: $85k → 11%CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE: $100k → 9%VOICES FOR ILLINOIS CHILDREN: $5k → 14%ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN OF NEW JERSEY: $65k → 16%THE CHILDREN'S PARTNERSHIP: $20k → 14%THE CHILDREN'S VILLAGE: $5k → 9%THE CHILDREN'S AGENDA: $23k → 14%ARKANSAS ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES: $40k → 17%MICHIGAN'S CHILDREN: $10k → 16%CONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN SERVICES: $50k → 11%CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE: $65k → 9%ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN OF NEW JERSEY: $40k → 16%WESTCHESTER CHILDREN'S ASSOCIATION INC: $20k → 9%THE CHILDREN'S AGENDA: $3k → 14%TEXAS NETWORK OF YOUTH SERVICES: $15k → 10%CHILDREN AT RISK: $5k → 16%ARKANSAS ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN & FAMILIES: $20k → 17%CONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN SERVICES: $50k → 11%ILLINOIS COLLABORATION ON YOUTH: $45k → 14%CONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN SERVICES: $40k → 11%CONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN SERVICES INC: $20k → 11%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
WA
ID
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
KY
VA
MD
AZ
KS
AR
NC
DC
HI
OK
LA
MS
AL
GA
TX

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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$9.6M · 35 repeat orgs$1.1M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +28% since the first grant, against +28% for the ones you funded once.

35 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2024, 27 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

35
23

Total granted

$9.6M
$950k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+28%
+28%

Still filing today

94%
87%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 61% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $152k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesCrime & LegalCivil RightsYouth DevelopmentEducationCommunity ImprovementOther

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

  • TC
    THE CHILDREN'S VILLAGE INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $1.5M · revenue +36%
  • NC
    NC CHILD
    5× · 2018–2022 · $659k · revenue +89%
  • VF
    VOICES FOR VIRGINIA'S CHILDREN
    5× · 2018–2022 · $582k · revenue +59% · 27% of their budget

Funded once

  • ZS
    Z SMITH REYNOLDS FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +7%
  • OC
    Ohio Children's Alliance
    2× · 2019–2020 · $98k · revenue -1%
  • UC
    Utah Childrengraduated
    2× · 2019–2021 · $90k · revenue +95%

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
Children's Advocates for Change

Children's advocates for change was organized to improve the lives of children in illinois by bringing about significant changes public policies and programs for children through research, policy analysis and advocacy, public education and…

Human Services
2
Advocates for Illinois Children

Improve the lives of children in illinois by bringing about significant changes in public policies and programs for children through research, policy analysis and advocacy, public education and community outreach.

Human Services
3
Childrens Advocacy Centers of Mississippi

The center supports and advocates on behalf of children's advocacy centers (cac) and multidisciplinary teams (mdt) statewide. cac's are facility based programs, which utilize an mdt approach (including child protective services, law…

Human Services
4
Minnesota Chapter of the National Childrens Alliance

The Minnesota Children's Alliance leads the development and growth of locally based children's advocacy centers and multidisciplinary teams to ensure equitable access to services for healing and growth.

Crime & Legal
5
The Child Advocacy Center of Greater Rochester

The child advocacy center of greater rochester delivers excellence in child abuse response, healing and prevention through collaborative service, awareness, education and leadership.

Crime & Legal
6
Childrens Advocacy Center of East Central Illinois

To assist children who have been victims of abuse

Crime & Legal
7
Advocates for Children of New York

To ensure a high quality education for new york students who face barriers to academic success, focusing on students from low-income backgrounds.

Crime & Legal
8
Children's Alliance Incorporated

Shape public policy and practice to improve the well-being of kentucky's at-risk children and families through advocacy, leadership, collaboration, and education.

—
9
Children's Advocacy Centers of Kentucky Inc

Children's advocacy centers of kentucky, inc. seeks to build relationships at the state and national levels by collaborating with partners which will benefit the work of kentucky child advocacy centers.

Crime & Legal
10
Children's Advocacy Centers of North Carolina Inc

We are an accredited state chapter of the national children's alliance. as the statewide leader we develop, train and sustain high-quality children's advocacy centers and multi-disciplinary teams.

Crime & Legal
11
Alaska Childrens Alliance

Dedicated to strengthening the multi-disciplinary response to child abuse. We strive to ensure that professionals throughout Alaska are equipped to do the best job possible at holding offenders accountable and helping children and families…

Crime & Legal
12
Childrens Advocacy Center for Child Abuse Assessment and Treatment

We provide children affected by violence and their families with services of support, forensic interviews, resources, and hope.

Crime & Legal

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and the most unlike its peers is Z Smith Reynolds Foundation Inc. 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.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyPregnancy Support ServicesIndependent K-12 SchoolsYouth Development ServicesPolicy Research and AdvocacyAffordable Housing Developm…Community FoundationsChild Abuse Advocacy Servic…
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 39 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%0%<5yr14%4%5–10yr19%11%10–20yr16%35%20–35yr13%30%35–55yr16%21%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%0%<5yr14%1%5–10yr19%8%10–20yr16%27%20–35yr13%34%35–55yr16%30%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 — 1% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
1%1/67
the rest of the field
13%
240,395/1,819,498

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

67 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
20
Early backer (in before they grew)
62/67
Grantees still filing
44/67
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

THE CHILDREN'S VILLAGE INC — $1,483,930 · Human ServicesTHE CHILDREN'S VILLAGE INCThe Children's Agenda Inc — $272,300 · Human ServicesThe Children's Agenda IncVOICES FOR GEORGIA'S CHILDREN INC — $260,000 · Human ServicesVOICES FOR GEORGIA'S CHILDREN INCCONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN SERVICES INC — $245,000 · Human ServicesCONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN SERVICES …ARKANSAS ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES — $215,500 · Human ServicesADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN OF NEW JERSEY — $205,000 · Human ServicesKIDS FORWARD INC — $195,000 · Human ServicesTHE CHILDREN'S PARTNERSHIP — $177,100 · Human ServicesChildren First PA — $170,000 · Human ServicesCHILDREN'S ALLIANCE — $165,000 · Human Services+14 more — $754,000 · Human Services+14 moreNC CHILD — $658,500 · OtherNC CHILDCHILDRENS ACTION ALLIANCE INC — $632,000 · OtherCHILDRENS ACTION ALLIANCE INCCOLORADO CHILDREN'S CAMPAIGN — $512,500 · OtherCOLORADO CHILDREN'S CAMPAIGNMAINE CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE — $316,800 · OtherMAINE CHILDREN'S ALLIANCEVoices for Ohios Children — $294,000 · OtherVoices for Ohios ChildrenSCHUYLER CENTER FOR ANALYSIS AND ADVOCACY INC — $115,500 · Other+14 more — $719,500 · Other+14 moreVOICES FOR VIRGINIA'S CHILDREN — $582,000 · Civil RightsVOICES FOR VIRGIN…KENTUCKY YOUTH ADVOCATES INC — $439,577 · Civil RightsKENTUCKY YOUTH AD…COALITION ON HUMAN NEEDS — $380,645 · Civil RightsCOALITION ON HUMA…CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND — $120,000 · Civil RightsCHILDREN'S DEFENS…Utah Children — $90,000 · Civil RightsUtah ChildrenChildren At Risk — $210,000 · Crime & LegalCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY ALLIANCE INC — $125,984 · Crime & LegalTexans Care For Children Inc — $65,500 · Crime & LegalOklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy — $30,000 · Crime & LegalYOUTH LAW CENTER — $25,000 · Crime & LegalMASSACHUSETTS LAW REFORM INSTITUTE INC — $25,000 · Crime & LegalCHILDREN'S LAW CENTER INC — $25,000 · Crime & LegalRHODE ISLAND KIDS COUNT INC — $360,077 · Youth DevelopmentFosterClub Inc — $50,000 · Youth DevelopmentCHILDREN'S FOUNDATION OF MISSISSIPPI — $25,000 · Youth Development+1 more — $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentHAWAII CHILDREN'S ACTION NETWORK — $320,000 · EducationNorth Carolina Early Education Coalition — $65,000 · EducationIDAHO VOICES FOR CHILDREN FOUNDATION INC — $374,577 · Community Improvement+1 more — $6,000 · Community Improvement
Human Services$4,142,830Other$3,248,800Civil Rights$1,612,222Crime & Legal$506,484Youth Development$445,077Education$385,000Community Improvement$380,577

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetTHE CHILDREN'S VILLAGE INC — $1,483,930 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetNC CHILD — $658,500 over 5y, 12% of budgetCHILDRENS ACTION ALLIANCE INC — $632,000 over 6y, 9.2% of budgetVOICES FOR VIRGINIA'S CHILDREN — $582,000 over 5y, 27% of budgetCOLORADO CHILDREN'S CAMPAIGN — $512,500 over 4y, 7.5% of budgetKENTUCKY YOUTH ADVOCATES INC — $439,577 over 6y, 6.1% of budgetCOALITION ON HUMAN NEEDS — $380,645 over 3y, 14% of budgetIDAHO VOICES FOR CHILDREN FOUNDATION INC — $374,577 over 4y, 12% of budgetRHODE ISLAND KIDS COUNT INC — $360,077 over 5y, 13% of budgetHAWAII CHILDREN'S ACTION NETWORK — $320,000 over 5y, 15% of budgetMAINE CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE — $316,800 over 4y, 22% of budgetVoices for Ohios Children — $294,000 over 2y, 21% of budgetThe Children's Agenda Inc — $272,300 over 4y, 12% of budgetVOICES FOR GEORGIA'S CHILDREN INC — $260,000 over 3y, 4.8% of budgetCONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN SERVICES INC — $245,000 over 5y, 6.9% of budgetARKANSAS ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES — $215,500 over 4y, 4.5% of budgetChildren At Risk — $210,000 over 3y, 3.0% of budgetADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN OF NEW JERSEY — $205,000 over 3y, 4.0% of budgetKIDS FORWARD INC — $195,000 over 2y, 6.2% of budgetTHE CHILDREN'S PARTNERSHIP — $177,100 over 3y, 4.0% of budgetChildren First PA — $170,000 over 2y, 3.8% of budgetCHILDREN'S ALLIANCE — $165,000 over 3y, 6.0% of budgetKANSAS ACTION FOR CHILDREN INC — $127,500 over 2y, 5.1% of budgetCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY ALLIANCE INC — $125,984 over 3y, 6.0% of budgetCHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND — $120,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetSCHUYLER CENTER FOR ANALYSIS AND ADVOCACY INC — $115,500 over 3y, 6.3% of budgetZ SMITH REYNOLDS FOUNDATION INC — $100,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetOhio Children's Alliance — $98,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetCHILDREN NOW — $90,500 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetUtah Children — $90,000 over 2y, 7.4% of budgetCONNECTICUT VOICES FOR CHILDREN INC — $90,000 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetPOLICY INSTITUTE FOR THE CHILDREN OF LOUISIANA INC — $85,000 over 2y, 6.9% of budgetVOICES FOR CHILDREN IN NEBRASKA — $85,000 over 3y, 6.2% of budgetVOICES FOR VERMONTS CHILDREN — $80,000 over 3y, 7.9% of budgetMICHIGAN'S CHILDREN — $75,000 over 3y, 8.3% of budgetLOUISIANA PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES — $70,000 over 2y, 28% of budgetCITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR CHILDREN OF NEW YORK INC — $67,500 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetTexans Care For Children Inc — $65,500 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetNorth Carolina Early Education Coalition — $65,000 over 1y, 7.0% of budgetTexas Network of Youth Services Inc — $60,000 over 2y, 3.4% of budgetFosterClub Inc — $50,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetYWCA METROPOLITAN CHICAGO — $50,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetVOICES for Alabama's Children — $45,000 over 2y, 8.8% of budgetYOUTH NETWORK COUNCIL DBA ILLINOIS COLLABORATION ON YOUTH — $45,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetJANNUS INC — $40,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetCHILDREN FIRST FOR OREGON — $40,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetFOSTER SUCCESS — $32,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetCHILD AND FAMILY POLICY CENTER — $30,500 over 1y, 7.6% 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.

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.

Annie E Casey Foundat…Alliance for Early Su…First Focus on Childr…The David and Lucile …Center on Budget and …Pritzker Family Found…Georgetown UniversityWK Kellogg FoundationAmerican Heart Associ…New Venture FundCarequest Foundation …Community Catalyst Inc
Annie E Casey Foundation IncMD82.1× affinity44 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Annie E Casey Foundation Inc · Alliance for Early Success Fka Birth to Five Policy Alliance · First Focus on Children · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Center on Budget and Policy Priorities · Pritzker Family Foundation · Georgetown University · WK Kellogg Foundation · American Heart Association Inc · New Venture Fund · Carequest Foundation Inc · Community Catalyst Inc

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 Partnership for Americas Children 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 · 50%2%8%17%30%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 21%
  • FosterClub Inc — 21% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
5get no government money at all
13report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
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: 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 64 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 2024, released 2024. 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 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