· Public charity
Pillars Fund
To strengthen relations with American Muslims and all Americans.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 45 grants below total $2,425,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $2,738,668 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $313,668 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k21 grants · $425k
- $50k–250k24 grants · $2.0M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Inner City Muslim Action Net | $155,000 |
| Detroit Revival Engaging Mus | $145,000 |
| Defending Rights and Dissent | $135,000 |
| Muslim Wellness Foundation | $135,000 |
| Institute for Social Policy | $130,000 |
| CUNY School of Law | $125,000 |
| Georgia Muslim Voter Project | $125,000 |
| Allied Media Projects | $100,000 |
| Muslim Anti-Racism Collab | $100,000 |
| Pillars of the Community | $100,000 |
| New American Leaders Inc | $75,000 |
| Tides Center | $65,000 |
| MSA West | $60,000 |
| Community Partners | $50,000 |
| Faith In Action Network | $50,000 |
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 (FY19–24, $938k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, 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 +82% since the first grant, against -8% for the ones you funded once.
39 repeat relationships — 29 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 13 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, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $270k 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
- IMINNER-CITY MUSLIM ACTION NETWORK6× · 2019–2024 · $586k · revenue +40%
- TCTHE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK SCHOOL OF LAW FOUNDATION INC6× · 2019–2024 · $523k · revenue +333%
ALLIED MEDIA PROJECTS INC6× · 2019–2024 · $510k · revenue +58%
Funded once
- IFInstitute for Social Policyone grant, 2021 · $75k
- HIHarness Incone grant, 2018 · $50k
- BGBOOM GEN STUDIOS LLCone grant, 2020 · $35k
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.
MAPS is a national non-partisan, nonprofit network of professionals and organizations that aim to create an enabling ecosystem for Muslim American public servants to thrive both personally and professionally. Our mission is to support the…
Human Rights Project
The mission of the Center for Islamophobia Studies is to develop a sustained response that both examines the roots of Islamophobia and provides the empirical data to quantify the problem. The Center is focused on developing the tools…
The Muslim Power Building Project (MPBP) provides training, resources, and collaborative learning space for Muslim organizers to advance racial equity, foster collective action, and create sustainable social change by building power rooted…
Aifd's mission is to advocate for the preservation of the founding principles of our u.s. constitution, liberty, and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state. public engagement program provides education to the general public on…
Mpv is creating a culture rooted in human rights in muslim societies in the u.s. and around the world.
Through legal advocacy, education, media relations, civic engagement and grassroots mobilzation, cair-ny empowers the american muslim community against discrimination.
The American Muslim Community Foundation cultivates donor giving and diversified funding to advance charitable causes and programs.
The california immigrant policy center upholds the humanity of immigrant communities in california by transforming systems to achieve racial, social, and economic justice.
The organizations mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, and empower American Muslims and build coalitions to promote justice and mutual understanding through education, mediation,…
Established to represent the american muslim community and to advocate for human rights, tolerance, and justice in the united state and the world, and to foster interfaith and interethnic understanding.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Muslim Advocates and the most unlike its peers is Huron University College Foundation Usa. 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 21 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) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 7% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% 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.
61 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. 61 of the 77 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
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 INNER-CITY MUSLIM ACTION NETWORK ↗
- Who funds THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK SCHOOL OF LAW FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ALLIED MEDIA PROJECTS INC ↗
- Who funds Muslim Wellness Foundation ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL POLICY AND UNDERSTANDING ↗
- Who funds Georgia Muslim Voter Project ↗
- Who funds Dream of Detroit ↗
- Who funds PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY ↗
- Who funds MUSLIM ANTI-RACISM COLLABORATIVE ↗
- Who funds SIRAT CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds NEW LEADERS INC ↗
- Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
- Who funds PROJECT SOUTH INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL MUSEUM OF MUSLIM CULTURE ↗
- Who funds FAITH IN ACTION NETWORK ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds Emgage Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds Action Center on Race & the Economy Institute ↗
- Who funds IL Muslim Civic Coalition ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds REVIVING THE ISLAMIC SISTERHOOD FOR ↗
- Who funds DEFENDING RIGHTS AND DISSENT INC ↗
- Who funds Appellate Project Inc ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds WOMEN MAKE MOVIES INC ↗
- Who funds HURON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION USA ↗
- Who funds MUSLIM ADVOCATES ↗
- Who funds MALIKAH INC FKA INTERNATIONAL MUSLIM WOMENS INITIATIVE FOR SELF EMPOWERMENT ↗
- Who funds Center on Muslim Philanthropy ↗
- Who funds American Muslim Health Professionals ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD INC ↗
- Who funds Global Deaf Muslim USA ↗
- Who funds United States Artists Inc ↗
- Who funds THE FILMMAKERS COLLABORATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds Manara West ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR NEW AMERICANS ↗
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: Proteus Fund Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Chicago Community Trust · American Muslim Community Foundation · Islamic Relief USA · The Ford Foundation · Tides Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Barzinji Family Foundation · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Sterling Charitable Gift Fund · El-Hibri 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 Pillars Fund 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.
- The Filmmakers Collaborative Inc — 1% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Pillars Fund?
Find your warmest path to Pillars Fund through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.