· Private foundation
The New Opportunities Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k10 grants · $255k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $310k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| FOUNDER'S PLEDGE USAID ORIGRAMS | $200,000 |
| SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER | $60,000 |
| NEIGHBORHOOD MINISTRIES | $50,000 |
| NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER | $40,000 |
| CAMP FIRE INLAND NW | $40,000 |
| COOPERATIVE FOR EDUCATION (COED) | $35,000 |
| HOLLER HEALTH JUSTICE | $25,000 |
| NEW INCENTIVES | $25,000 |
| WATER FOR SOUTH SUDAN | $25,000 |
| BOLD FUTURES | $25,000 |
| FULLER CENTER FOR HOUSING - PERU BUILD | $20,000 |
| INTERNATIONAL SAMARITANS | $10,000 |
| NATIONALITIES COUNCIL OF INDIANA | $10,000 |
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 (FY21–25, $110k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
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.
16 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
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 FY2025, 61% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $220k 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
- CFCOOPERATIVE FOR EDUCATION6× · 2020–2025 · $210k · revenue +16%
- SPSOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC4× · 2022–2025 · $200k · revenue +7%
- WFWater for South Sudan Inc3× · 2023–2025 · $85k · revenue +22%
Funded once
- UHUNLIMITED HEALTH (SCI FOUNDATION)one grant, 2024 · $40k
- WKWAYNE & KIT DANLEY SCHOLARSHIPS NEIGHBORHOOD MINISTRIESone grant, 2020 · $30k
- CACAMP ARROWHEAD EPISCOPAL MISSION SUPPORT CENTERone grant, 2020 · $25k
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.
To lead and coordinate the global initiative to address and prevent criminalization, violence, and impunity against indigenous peoples towards strengthening their collectives, solidarity, and actions.
SHRI fights alongside communities to end open defecation as a key step in an ongoing struggle for health equity and soical and economic justice.
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
Pathfinder expands access to sexual and reproductive health services, opening the door to opportunities for women and all individuals to thrive-economically, educationally, and civically. driven by our country-led leadership and local…
To create positive social change for millions of under-served people across the developing world by providing critically needed information and education through innovative media, appropriate technology and direct community engagement.
Inclusive Development International supports communities around the world to defend their rights and resources in the face of harmful corporate activities and internationally financed development projects, and we advocate for a more just…
Our commitment to providing accessible clean water extends beyond the boundaries of countries, continents, and cultures. We are driven by a shared belief in the power of technology to transform lives, uplift communities, and create a more…
To achieve legal and systematic change that addresses violence and discrimination against women and girls around the world.
To offer the dignity of fair employment to people living in impoverished communities, who become transformational agents of global forest restoration.
Namati, inc. (namati) is dedicated to putting the law in people's hands. we strive to build a just world, in which every one of us can take part in the decisions and demand accountability from the institutions that affect our lives.…
The National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) is a leader in advancing immigrant rights through its unique strategy drawing on its legal services to promote legal reform through litigation, advocacy and strategic communications.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Center for Family Philanthropy Inc and the most unlike its peers is Evergreen Development Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
16 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. 16 of the 29 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 COOPERATIVE FOR EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds NEW INCENTIVES ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC ↗
- Who funds HOLLER HEALTH JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds BOLD FUTURES NM ↗
- Who funds Water for South Sudan Inc ↗
- Who funds Neighborhood Ministries Inc ↗
- Who funds Equalize Health Formerly D-Rev ↗
- Who funds Nationalities Council of Indiana ↗
- Who funds EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL SAMARITAN ↗
- Who funds DIRECT RELIEF ↗
- Who funds EVAC INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL CENTER FOR FAMILY PHILANTHROPY INC ↗
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: Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 organization The New Opportunities 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 New Opportunities Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The New Opportunities 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.