How much did THE MILLER-WEHRLE FAMILY FOUNDATION grant in FY2023?

Philanthropy$5.0MCrime & Legal$155kCivil Rights$130kHuman Services$125kEnvironment$90kInternational$35kEducation$35kFood & Nutrition$25kYouth Development$15kOther$760k

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

lawworkersbook

2019

workers

2020

foodworkersdoctors borders

2021

capitalcasaworkers

2022

workerscapitallaw

2023

—

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

03FY2023 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$5,024,532

Median grant

States reached

Total assets

Largest grants

BANK OF AMERICA CHARITABLE GIFT FUND$5,024,532

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 (FY17–22, $125k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15% — the area typically sits at 11%. 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.

18%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$1.1M · 35 repeat orgs$5.2M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +115% since the first grant, against +96% for the ones you funded once.

35 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2023, 35 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$1.1M

$225k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+115%

+96%

Still filing today

60%

56%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5.0M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Human ServicesCrime & LegalEnvironmentCivil RightsEducationFood & NutritionOther

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

NATIONAL DOMESTIC WORKERS ALLIANCE
6× · 2017–2022 · $80k · revenue +125%
SR
SYLVIA RIVERA LAW PROJECT
6× · 2017–2022 · $75k · revenue +48%
NN
NATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS
2× · 2021–2022 · $60k · revenue +609%

Funded once

TRANSGENDER LAW CENTERgraduated
one grant, 2022 · $30k · revenue +196%
SU
SWEET UNION BAPTIST CHURCH
one grant, 2020 · $25k
GD
GIVE DIRECTLY INC
one grant, 2020 · $20k

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.

Actionaid Usa

Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice.

Social Science

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

Asylee Women Enterprise Inc

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.

International

District of Columbia Access to Justice

Work with DC courts, private bar & legal services providers to increase legal representations for low & moderate income DC residents, enhance efficiency of legal services, and reduce barriers to the judicial system.

Crime & Legal

Out & Equal

Social Science

Public Interest Law Initiative

PILI engages, inspires and empowers those advancing equal access to justice.

Crime & Legal

Equal Justice Center

The Equal Justice Center is a non-profit law firm and employment justice organization which empowers low-income families, workers, and communities to achieve fair treatment in the workplace, in the justice system, and in our shared society…

Civil Rights

Center for Domestic Peace

Center for Domestic Peace mobilizes individuals and communities to transform our world so domestic violence no longer exists, creating greater safety, justice, and equality.

Human Services

OneJustice

Strengthen the legal services sector's expertise and capacity to advance justice and equity.

—

The District of Columbia Bar Foundation

To fund, support, and improve legal representation of the disadvantaged in the district of columbia.

Crime & Legal

Fund for Global Human Rights Inc

Human rights advocacy

International

The Dc Central Kitchen Inc

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Domestic Workers Alliance Inc and the most unlike its peers is Chesapeake Bay Foundation Inc. 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 27 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/38

the rest of the field

10%

4,108/42,320

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

38 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)

36/38

Grantees still filing

31/38

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Philanthropy$5,024,532Other$835,000Crime & Legal$155,000Civil Rights$130,000Human Services$125,000Environment$90,000International$35,000

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.

Greater Washington Community FoundationDC24.4× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Greater Washington Community Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz · Borealis Philanthropy · Open Society Institute · The Rockefeller Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · United Way of the National Capital Area · Nora Roberts Foundation · New Venture Fund · The Ford 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 MILLER-WEHRLE FAMILY 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.

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 · 0–60%

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: NATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~10 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 7.1× since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 061610849 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 NATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS, 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 10 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 6% 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 Miller-Wehrle Family Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The Miller-Wehrle Family Foundation 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.

THE MILLER-WEHRLE FAMILY FOUNDATION

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

38 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Miller-Wehrle Family Foundation?

More from the funding graph

THE MILLER-WEHRLE FAMILY FOUNDATION

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

38 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Miller-Wehrle Family Foundation?

More from the funding graph