· Private foundation
The Daphne Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
Read this first · the figures below need context
77% of The Daphne Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to North Star Fund Inc, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 9 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2023, the last year The Daphne Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 9 organizations, $446k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2023
- $10k–50k9 grants · $366k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $80k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CAAAV - Organizing Asian Communities | $80,000 |
| JUSTICE COMMITTEE | $46,000 |
| DESIS RISING UP AND MOVING | $40,000 |
| North Star Fund | $40,000 |
| AFRICAN COMMUNITIES TOGETHER | $40,000 |
| BRANDWORKERS INC | $40,000 |
| BLACK WOMEN'S BLUEPRINT | $40,000 |
| FAITH IN NEW YORK | $40,000 |
| VOCAL-NY | $40,000 |
| Project Hospitality | $40,000 |
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 (FY20–24, $166k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 11% of The Daphne Foundation’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.
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.
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 +37% since the first grant, against +23% for the ones you funded once.
10 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2023, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call). Read against FY2023, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k 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
- JCJustice Committee Inc5× · 2020–2024 · $178k · revenue +1%
- DDDRUM Desis Rising Up and Moving Inc5× · 2020–2024 · $166k · revenue +100%
- CACommittee Against Anti-Asian Violence Inc4× · 2020–2024 · $166k · revenue +116%
Funded once
- CUCOMMUNITIES UNITED FOR POLICE REEFORMone grant, 2020 · $43k
- PRPOLITICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES INCone grant, 2020 · $40k · revenue +23%
- LALAWYERS ALLIANCE FOR NEW YORKone grant, 2020 · $15k · revenue -2%
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.
Worker Justice Center of New York, Inc. (WJCNY) pusues juistice for those denied hian rights, with a focus on agricultural and other low-wage workers, through legal representation, community empowerment and advocacy for institutional…
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,…
In 2024, Inner City Law Center, ICLC, served over 3,400 people, helping vulnerable Angelenos to remain in their homes and recover nearly $20.5 million in financial benefits.
The Organization works to promote the social welfare of low income people living in New York City, New York State and the nation through public education, leadership development and advocacy.
The NYC Network of Worker Cooperatives is dedicated to sharing and cultivating the educational, financial, and technical resources of its members and supporting the growth of worker cooperatives for social and economic justice. We offer…
Asian Immigrant Women Advocates empowers low-income, limited English speaking immigrant women and youth through education, leadership development and civic participation programs.
Asylee Women Enterprise (AWE), journeys with asylum seekers and other forced migrants as they navigate the immigration legal process, begin to heal from past trauma, and rebuild their lives in Baltimore.
Youth represent uses legal services, policy advocacy, peer education, and other tools to build power and opportunity for black, latine, and other youth of color who the criminal legal system and other systems of oppression harm the most.…
To promote justice, dignity, and equity for migrants and farmworkers through advocacy, education, outreach, and direct services. We empower our communities to achieve self-sufficiency by fostering collaboration among partners.
To advance the rights of workers by engaging diverse faith communities into action, from grassroots organizing to shaping policy at the local, state and national levels. They envision a nation where all workers enjoy the rights to:…
Community Governance & Development Council (CGDC) is a non-profit community organization aimed at empowering Southwest Yonkers through technology, participatory urban planning, and community leadership development.
Legal, immigration and community organizing
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Voices of Community Activists & Leaders (Vocal-Ny) Inc and the most unlike its peers is Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
14 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. 14 of the 15 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 NORTH STAR FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Justice Committee Inc ↗
- Who funds FAITH IN NEW YORK ↗
- Who funds Brandworkers International Inc ↗
- Who funds DRUM Desis Rising Up and Moving Inc ↗
- Who funds Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence Inc ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN COMMUNITIES TOGETHER INC ↗
- Who funds THE RECONCILIATION CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds VOICES OF COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS & LEADERS (VOCAL-NY) INC ↗
- Who funds PROJECT HOSPITALITY INC ↗
- Who funds ROCKAWAY YOUTH TASK FORCE INC ↗
- Who funds POLITICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES INC ↗
- Who funds LAWYERS ALLIANCE FOR NEW YORK ↗
- Who funds STATEN ISLAND IMMIGRANT CENTER ↗
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: New York Foundation · The Scherman Foundation Inc · New York Women's Foundation Inc · NEO Philanthropy Inc · North Star Fund Inc · Robin Hood Foundation · Proteus Fund Inc · Open Society Institute · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Ford Foundation · Mertz Gilmore Foundation · The New York Community Trust
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 The Daphne Foundation 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.
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 The Daphne Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Daphne Foundation 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.