Loading…
· Private foundation
THE A ROBERT KAUFMAN FOUNDATION FOR WORKING CLASS ACTION
This foundation accepts unsolicited grant applications.
$28k
Granted FY2024
7
Grants
4
Communities
$6k
Largest
01What you fund
0189% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2020–2024.
Human Services$60kScience & Tech$32kInternational$19kCivil Rights$9kEducation$2kOther$15k
02FY2024 · 7 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
$3,500
Median grant
4
States reached
$1.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
- FAJR SCIENTIFIC$6,000
- HUMANE BORDERS$5,000
- NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION$5,000
- THE MASSACHUSETTS BAIL FUND$3,500
- SOUTH TEXAS HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER$3,000
- ROSENBERG FUND FOR CHILDREN$3,000
- COLIBRI CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS$2,000
02The need
03
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 (FY20–24, $60k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12% — the area typically sits at 7%. 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.
92%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$124k · 8 repeat orgs$12k to everyone else
8 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
8
4
Total granted
$124k
$6k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+4%
+56%
Still filing today
100%
25%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 78% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Human ServicesScience & TechCivil RightsInternationalEducationOther
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
- NCNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION5× · 2020–2024 · $26k · revenue +4%
- HBHUMANE BORDERS5× · 2020–2024 · $23k · revenue +152%
- STSOUTH TEXAS HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER5× · 2020–2024 · $19k · revenue +110%
Funded once
- RFROCKLEY FAMILY FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $2k · revenue +56%
- NMNO MORE DEATHSone grant, 2020 · $2k
- ATANGRY TIAS AND ABEULOS OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEYone grant, 2022 · $1k
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
Border Angels
Border Angels promotes a culture of love through advocacy education by creating a social consciousness and engaging in direct action to defend the rights of migrants and refugees.
Human Services
2
Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting
AZCIR holds powerful people and institutions accountable by exposing injustice and systemic inequities through investigative journalism.
Arts & Culture
3
Texas Bar Foundation
The Foundation solicits charitable contributions and provides funding to enhance the rule of law and the system of justice in Texas.
Crime & Legal
4
Texas Defender Service
Texas Defender Service (TDS) leads the fight to end excessive punishment in Texas.
Civil Rights
5
Pro-Choice Arizona
Pro-Choice Arizona centers abolition and reproductive justice values to prioritize community needs. We advance reproductive equity, pregnancy and family justice, and abortion access for all folks living in Arizona through direct service…
Health
6
Commission Shift
Commission Shift is reforming oil and gas oversight by building public support to hold the Railroad Commission of Texas accountable to its mission in a shifting energy landscape.
Environment
7
Aclu Foundation of Texas Inc
To be Texas' foremost champion of individual rights & freedoms through education & litigation.
Civil Rights
8
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
9
Rethink Priorities
Rethink Priorities' mission is to support organizations, researchers, and changemakers in efforts to generate the most significant possible charitable impact for others in the present and the long-term future.
Human Services
10
Government Integrity Fund
To Conduct research and educate the public about various policy issues across the United States.
—
11
Center for Responsible Science
Philanthropy
12
Puente Human Rights Movement
The puente human rights movement is a migrant worker justice foundation based in phoenix, az. we develop, educate, and empower migrant communities to protect and defend our families and ourselves.
Human Services
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Colibri Center for Human Rights and the most unlike its peers is South Texas Human Rights Center Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network
10 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Human Services$60,000Science & Tech$32,000International$18,500Other$14,500Civil Rights$8,600Education$2,025
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 NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds HUMANE BORDERS ↗
- Who funds THE MASSACHUSETTS BAIL FUND ↗
- Who funds SOUTH TEXAS HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER ↗
- Who funds ROSENBERG FUND FOR CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds COLIBRI CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds YELLOWHAMMER FUND ↗
- Who funds FAJR SCIENTIFIC ↗
- Who funds PROGRESS TEXAS INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds ROCKLEY FAMILY FOUNDATION ↗
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.
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCA6.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 THE A ROBERT KAUFMAN FOUNDATION FOR WORKING CLASS ACTION 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
2get 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: SOUTH TEXAS HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
insufficient risk
Limited financial data in public filings.
Track record & reputation
low risk
8 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 2.1× since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 463559349 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 SOUTH TEXAS HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER, 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.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2025; revenue grew 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 The a Robert Kaufman Foundation for Working Class Action?
Find your warmest path to The a Robert Kaufman Foundation for Working Class Action 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