How much did RSF SOCIAL FINANCE INC grant in FY2024?

Philanthropy$35MHuman Services$25MFood & Nutrition$23MEnvironment$19MEducation$18MCommunity Improvement$17MArts & Culture$16MInternational$15MHealth$6.2MOther$48M

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

pause partnermontessoriseptemberpeace corpsproposalregenerative agriculturalagricultural practices

2019

described invokingpause proposalart buddiesruefforeststrategic planningimprovements

2020

covid responsecovid emergencyemergency responseline mobilizationcoronaviruscsakaye

2021

beachcohort participatoryparticipatory poolafghanistanbii cohortholistic legalgrand canyon

2022

behalf peterpeter singercohort participatorybii cohortparticipatory poolpurchase staffrecommended mary

2023

eli kaplanaolitp conveningrecommended navigationbaptist healthpesticide atlas-unitedatlas-united states

2024

e-techbraver angelsvoyagingarts sciencescanvassingstudents facultyhigher education

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 457 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k52 grants · $362k
$10k–50k257 grants · $5.1M
$50k–250k113 grants · $11M
$250k+35 grants · $32M

$25,000

Median grant

States reached

$108M

Total assets

Largest grants

IMPACTASSETS INC$5,520,632
NATIONAL BLACK FOOD AND JUSTICE ALLIANCE$3,008,514
GLOBAL WHOLE BEING FUND$2,650,000
LIVING LANDS TRUST$2,338,139
NATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST$2,283,054
NEW WORLD FOUNDATION$1,663,198
EKVNV YEFOLECVLKE$1,310,315
FWDUS EDUCATION FUND INC$1,250,000
QUIPA INC$1,020,000
IMPACT CHARITABLE$1,000,000
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SAN BENITO COUNTY$833,185
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND$764,104
FRIENDS OF VANCOUVER FOUNDATION$721,195
INQUIRING SYSTEMS INC$590,000
THE FARM SCHOOL INC$506,000

02The need

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 (FY17–24, $21.5M) land where the poverty rate runs at 15% — the area typically sits at 10%. 80% 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.

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 5% of RSF SOCIAL FINANCE INC’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 27% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 25% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.

RSF SOCIAL FINANCE INClessmore of its giving

Placed by recipient address · 5.9% directed abroad (not shown)

Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$190M · 657 repeat orgs$31M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +80% since the first grant, against +63% for the ones you funded once.

657 repeat relationships — 316 still active in FY2024, 341 since wound down; 141 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

657

560

Total granted

$190M

$22M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+80%

+63%

Still filing today

92%

81%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9.1M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EducationEnvironmentArts & CultureHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementInternationalOther

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

II
IMPACTASSETS INC
5× · 2017–2024 · $9.2M · revenue +416%
FE
FWDUS EDUCATION FUND INC
5× · 2020–2024 · $7.8M · revenue +57%
CL
CHOOSE LOVE INC
5× · 2019–2023 · $6.9M · revenue +1925% · 28% of their budget

Funded once

CJ
COMBINED JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF GREATER BOSTON INC
one grant, 2023 · $2.0M · revenue -27%
FOUNDATION FOR LOUISIANAgraduated
one grant, 2020 · $1.2M · revenue +54% · 25% of their budget
AC
ARKANSAS COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONgraduated
one grant, 2018 · $891k · revenue +321%

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.

Nature for Justice

Mobilize funds and provide the necessary technical resources to leading, in-country organizations working with local, indigenous communities to achieve climate resiliency.

Environment

Multinational Exchange for Sustainable a

MESA connects and cultivates sustainable farmers and food systems leaders around the world.

Education

Taproot Earth

Taproot Earth works with communities to support strategies around the use of water, energy and land.

Environment

Global Forest Generation

Global Forest Generation restores and protects forest ecosystems in partnership with grassroots leaders and local communities across vast landscapes which play a critical role in preserving water, protecting biodiversity, storing carbon,…

Environment

CarbonPlan

We work collaboratively to build open tools and resources for the evaluation and deployment of robust climate programs. We share analyses through public communication and collaboration with journalists in order to foster effective climate…

Environment

The Alliance for Collective Action

To bring people together to develop and advance solutions for an inclusive, regenerative future.

Environment

Equitable Food Initiative

EFIs mission is to transform the produce industry and the lives of farmworkers by facilitating collaboration among workers, agricultural employers, retail buyers and consumer advocates.

Human Services

Climate Foundation

To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.

Science & Tech

Eden Peopleplanet

To offer the dignity of fair employment to people living in impoverished communities, who become transformational agents of global forest restoration.

International

Development in Gardening

Rooted in the practices and principles of agroecology, Development in Gardening works with uniquely marginalized communities to grow regenerative gardens and helps farmers build resilient, long-lasting food systems for themselves and their…

Community Improvement

Regenerative Earth

Preserving biological diversity and indigenous wisdom in keystone ecosystems globally, as well as enabling conditions where humans and the environment thrive within.

Environment

Good Work Institute Inc

To strengthen collaboration and encourage transition to regenerative systems.

Human Services

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is As You Sow and the most unlike its peers is Nova Ukraine. 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

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 22 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) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

2%22/1,333

the rest of the field

11%

206,142/1,818,232

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.

06the grantee network

1229 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

102

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

531

Early backer (in before they grew)

1184/1229

Grantees still filing

964/1229

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Philanthropy$35,445,465Human Services$25,454,629Other$84,577,569Food & Nutrition$23,007,098Environment$18,590,911Education$17,850,377Community Improvement$16,839,895

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.

Common Counsel FoundationCA96.1× affinity121 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Common Counsel Foundation · The Schmidt Family Foundation · The Triskeles Foundation · Novo Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Possibility Labs · Solidaire Network Inc · Community Foundation For · Proteus Fund Inc · Ndn Collective Inc · Impactassetsinc · Farm Aid 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 organisation RSF SOCIAL FINANCE INC 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

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

15get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

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: OHANA WAA.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~24 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 3 filed years.

Track record & reputation

medium risk

3 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 2.2× since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 834591925 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 OHANA WAA, 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 24 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 100% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
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 Rsf Social Finance Inc?

Find your warmest path to Rsf Social Finance Inc 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