How much did SHERIFFS FOR TRUSTING COMMUNITIES grant in FY2023?

Civil Rights$660kCommunity Improvement$195kHousing & Shelter$100kHuman Services$72kCrime & Legal$60kPublic Benefit$48kPhilanthropy$25kEducation$20kFood & Nutrition$15kOther$705k

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

latinoelectioneeringissuespolicyorganizing

2021

fiainternationalfaith actionblacksocial justiceclasspolitical

2022

lowincomefiabuildingrevitalizeinternationalrural

2023

educationofficemovementgrassrootsconstitutionaldirectmurders

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

03FY2023 · 20 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2023

Under $10k2 grants · $10k
$10k–50k14 grants · $232k
$50k–250k4 grants · $450k

$16,500

Median grant

States reached

$1.0M

Total assets

Largest grants

WFP MA IE PAC$150,000
THE FAIRNESS PROJECT$100,000
WFP MA IE PAC$100,000
WORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION$100,000
PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE$30,000
SIEMBRA NC$25,000
BLOCTIDES ADVOCACY$25,000
PROGRESSIVE MARYLAND EDUCATION FUND$20,000
FAITH IN ACTION NEVADA$20,000
EL PUEBLO$16,500
REFORM LA JAILSLIVING THROUGH GIVING FOUNDATION$15,000
MASS ALLIANCE$15,000
THE LIGHT HOUSE PROJECT$15,000
DIGNITY AND POWER NOW$10,000
SOUTHERN VISION ALLIANCEIGNITE ACTION FUND$10,000

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 (FY22–23, $64k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10% — the area typically sits at 11%. 20% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants skew toward lower-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.

39%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$740k · 4 repeat orgs$1.2M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +621% since the first grant, against +246% for the ones you funded once.

4 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2023, 2 since wound down; 16 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$740k

$598k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+621%

+246%

Still filing today

100%

71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 19% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $562k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Civil RightsHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementPublic BenefitPhilanthropyCrime & LegalOther

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

WF
Working Families Party IE Committee
3× · 2020–2023 · $475k · revenue +621%
Faith In Action Network
2× · 2021–2022 · $120k · revenue -63%
FI
Faith in Action Fund
2× · 2020–2021 · $85k · revenue -99%

Funded once

FO
Friends of Eliseo Santana PAC
one grant, 2021 · $165k
PF
PAC for Justice
one grant, 2022 · $63k
MP
Mijente PACgraduated
one grant, 2020 · $60k · revenue +246%

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.

Forward Justice Action Network

Forward Justice Action Network is a nonprofit with the purpose to engage in educati onal and advocacy activities to promote political and grassroots support for publi c policies that advance racial social and economic justice in North…

Human Services

Forward Justice

Forward justice is a nonpartisan law policy and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial social and economic justice.

Crime & Legal

Jobs with Justice San Francisco

A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…

Employment

American Civil Liberties Union

At the aclu of south carolina, we envision a south carolina where "we the people" means all of us. we defend and advance the civil rights and civil liberties of all south carolinians through lobbying and political engagement.

—

North Carolina Black Alliance Inc

The North Carolina Black Alliance (NCBA) works toward state-level systemic change by strengthening the network of elected officials representing communities of color throughout the state and collaborating with progressive, grassroots…

Education

Powerswitch Action

National network forging multiracial feminist democracies and economies.

Community Improvement

New North Carolina Project Action First

The new north carolina project's mission is to make politics represent the needs of north carolinians by investing in communities of color, expanding the engaged electorate and creating #lifelongvoters.

Civil Rights

Alliance for Justice

Alliance for justice builds the strength of progressive movements by training and educating nonprofit organizations on advocacy, while harnessing their collective power to transform our state and federal courts.

Civil Rights

American Civil Liberties Union

The american civil liberties union foundation of northern california, inc. (aclu nc foundation) conducts litigation,policy research and advocacy, public education and community organizing in order to protect and defend civil liberties and…

—

Workers Defense Project

Workers defense project is a membership based organization that empowers low-income workers to achieve fair employment through education, direct services, organizing, and strategic partnerships.

Education

Towards Justice of Colorado

Towards justice is a nonprofit law firm that seeks to advance economic equity and worker power through impact litigation, strategic policy advocacy, and collaboration with organizers and public agencies. we were founded in response to the…

Civil Rights

Fund for Justice

Fund for Justice is a nationally connected social impact research and advocacy organization that works to achieve fundamental, systemic reform by addressing policies and practicies that prevent individuals from reaching their full…

Crime & Legal

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tides Advocacy and the most unlike its peers is Tides Foundation. 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 20 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 2% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

3%1/37

the rest of the field

11%

206,163/1,819,528

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

30 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

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

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

29/30

Grantees still filing

24/30

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$765,000Civil Rights$660,000Community Improvement$195,000Housing & Shelter$100,000Human Services$71,500Crime & Legal$60,000Public Benefit$48,000

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.

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 Society Action Fund IncNY30.3× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Open Society Action Fund Inc · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Tides Foundation · Sixteen Thirty Fund · NEO Philanthropy Action Fund · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · Tides Advocacy · NEO Philanthropy Inc · The Heising-Simons Action Fund · Women Donors Network Action · America Votes · New Venture Fund

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 SHERIFFS FOR TRUSTING COMMUNITIES 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

4get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%

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: Montana Human Rights Action Network.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

insufficient risk

Limited financial data in public filings.

Track record & reputation

medium risk

4 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 204601177 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 Montana Human Rights Action Network, 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

Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
WatchSustained operations— Filing through 2023; revenue contracted over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 60% 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 Sheriffs for Trusting Communities?

Find your warmest path to Sheriffs for Trusting Communities 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.

SHERIFFS FOR TRUSTING COMMUNITIES

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

30 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Sheriffs for Trusting Communities?

More from the funding graph

SHERIFFS FOR TRUSTING COMMUNITIES

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

30 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Sheriffs for Trusting Communities?

More from the funding graph