Loading…
· Public charity
PROJECT BEAUTY SHARE
Collect personal hygiene, cosmetics, and beauty products and distribute to people in need.
$1.8M
Granted FY2019
1
Grants
1
Communities
$10k
Largest
01What you fund
0167% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2019.
Philanthropy$10kOther$5k
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
2018
—
2019
transitional housing
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2019 · 1 grant
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
- HEARTH$10,000
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:
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–19) land where the poverty rate runs at 12% — the area typically sits at 10%. 100% of your 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 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
Skagit Valley Hospitality House
To reflect the heart of God by feeding, sheltering, clothing, healing and empowering those in need.
Housing & Shelter
2
Recovery Cafe Skagit
Provide a safe, healing, and restorative community that empowers long-term transformation
Education
3
Skagit Gleaners
Food recovery for low income families over 600 families served
—
4
Nourish Pierce County
To provide food to individuals in need with compassion, dignity and respect. No one needing assistance is turned away.
—
5
Partners Inland Northwest
Partners inland northwest is the sole source of comprehensive community and social services in spokane valley, serving low income and disadvantaged residents between the city of spokane and the idaho border.
Human Services
6
Clackamas Service Center
Clackamas service center is an inclusive, "one-stop" community center for individuals and families seeking food relief and resources for improved health, dignity, and stability.
Human Services
7
Northwest Counseling Service Inc
Housing Counseling Services
Housing & Shelter
8
Refugee Care Collective Northwest
Provide care to refugee families.
Human Services
9
Community Action Center
The center provides resources and direct services to low income residents.
Human Services
10
Community Health Center of
To provide our diverse community with access to high quality, affordable primary health care
Health
11
Re Sources
RE Sources mobilizes people of Northwest Washington to build just and thriving communities and to protect the land, water, and climate on which we all depend.
Environment
12
Spokane Baptist Association Homes
Senior citizen housing
Human Services
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Passages Family Support and the most unlike its peers is The Hutton Settlement. 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.
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
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 31 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% 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 11% of the field you don’t fund.
orgs you fund
1%2/139
the rest of the field
11%
1,869/16,341
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.
05the grantee network
90 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2018–2025.
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)
36
Early backer (in before they grew)
87/90
Grantees still filing
74/90
Grew since you first funded
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.
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.
Innovia FoundationWA75.5× affinity54 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Innovia Foundation · Second Harvest Inland Northwest · Better Health Together · Northwest Harvest Emm · Providence Health & Services - · The Avista Foundation · United Way of Spokane County · Numerica Credit Union · Multicare Health System · Empire Health Foundation · Women Helping Women Fund · School's Out Washington
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 PROJECT BEAUTY SHARE 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.
2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
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. 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.
04Through 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: GOOD SHEPHERD CENTER LOS ANGELES.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
low risk
~13 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 7 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
7 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 2.3× since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 954117138 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 GOOD SHEPHERD CENTER LOS ANGELES, 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
- On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 13 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2025; revenue grew over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 1% 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 Project Beauty Share?
Find your warmest path to Project Beauty Share 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