Loading…
· Public charity
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES FOUNDATION
Provide education and advocacy for people with psychiatric and/or developmental disabilities,with or without physical disabilities, so that they can achieve equal opportunities in all aspects of life.
$13k
Granted FY2023
1
Grants
1
Communities
$13k
Largest
01What you fund
01
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 54% of PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES FOUNDATION’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
see partpart iii
2021
see partpart iii
2022
see partpart iii
2023
—
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2023 · 1 grant
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
$12,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
- INSTITUTE OF URBAN LIVING$12,500
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:
Your human-services grants (FY19–22, $48k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14% — the area typically sits at 11%. 100% of those 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.
72%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$170k · 5 repeat orgs$65k to everyone else
5 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2023, 4 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
5
7
Total granted
$170k
$65k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+18%
+27%
Still filing today
60%
71%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2023, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
HealthHuman ServicesEmploymentOther
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
- LHLAUREL HOUSE INC4× · 2018–2022 · $48k · revenue +18%
- IOINSTITUTE OF URBAN LIVING4× · 2018–2023 · $45k · revenue -33%
- AOARC OF THE UNITED STATES4× · 2019–2022 · $38k · revenue +38%
Funded once
- TATHE ARC OF CENTRAL ALABAMA INCgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue +27%
- MHMENTAL HEALTH CENTER OF GREATER MANone grant, 2020 · $10k
- MJMEMPHIS JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERone grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +7%
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
The Arc of the Capital Area
Promoting independence and choice for adults and children with intellectual and developmental disabilities by providing individualized services.
—
2
Arc Industries Inc of Franklin County
Training and employment services for developmentally disabled adults.
—
3
The Arc of Tuscaloosa
The mission of The Arc of Tuscaloosa County is to provide activities to persons residing in Tuscaloosa County who have mental retardation, which enable the individual to maintain previously acquired skills/behaviors and prevent regression.
Human Services
4
The Arc of Cape May County Inc
The Arc of Cape May County, Inc. works to promote and protect the human rights of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities by actively supporting their full inclusion and participation in the community. To also provide…
—
5
Arc Services of Macomb Inc
The organization specializes in providing services to individuals with disabilities primarily through vocational, social, educational and residential programs.
—
6
The Arc of Union County Inc
To empower and support people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families.
—
7
The ArcDavidson County Inc
Provide housing for developmentally disabled adults. Also to develop and provide educational and recreational programs to children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
—
8
Arc of Greater New Haven Inc
To provide quality services to meet selected needs of individuals with intellectual disabilities in the greater new haven region.
Education
9
The Arc of Delaware Inc
The arc of delaware promotes and protects the human rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and actively supports full inclusion and participation in the community through advocacy and services to individuals and…
Housing & Shelter
10
The Arc of Camden County Inc
To provide quality, individualized services to people with disabilities that promote growth and independence in the pursuit of life goals.
—
11
The United Arc Inc
The united arc supports people living with intellectual and developmental disabilities in achieving the universal goals of inclusion, choice, and independence.
Human Services
12
Y E S the Arc
Provide services to adults with developmental disabilities.
—
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Arc of the United States and the most unlike its peers is The Institute of Urban Living. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network
8 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2024.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$127,500Health$53,500Human Services$47,500Employment$6,000
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 LAUREL HOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE OF URBAN LIVING ↗
- Who funds ARC OF THE UNITED STATES ↗
- Who funds THE ARC OF CENTRAL ALABAMA INC ↗
- Who funds MEMPHIS JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE ARC OF THE GLADES ↗
- Who funds FARMSTEADS OF NEW ENGLAND ↗
- Who funds ABILITIES OF NORTHWEST JERSEY 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.
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES FOUNDATION 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
- Laurel House Inc — 68% of income from government
- Abilities of Northwest Jersey Inc — 22% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
1rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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: INSTITUTE OF URBAN LIVING.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
high risk
~0 months of operating runway; revenue contracted over 5 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
5 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 521410842 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 INSTITUTE OF URBAN LIVING, 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
- FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 0 months of cash on hand.
- WatchSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue contracted over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 3% of their budget — diversified.
- 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 People With Disabilities Foundation?
Find your warmest path to People With Disabilities Foundation 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