Loading…
· Public charity
THE PEOPLE CONCERN
To provide housing, social, and supportive services for homeless and low-income individuals.
$15M
Granted FY2023
10
Grants
1
Communities
$1.1M
Largest
01What you fund
0174% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2023.
Human Services$13MHealth$3.8MCommunity Improvement$97kOther$5.7M
02FY2023 · 10 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2023
- $50k–250k4 grants · $637k
- $250k+6 grants · $4.6M
$542,011
Median grant
1
States reached
$117M
Total assets
Largest grants
- THE CENTER AT BLESSED SACRAMENT$1,135,343
- LOS ANGELES LGBT CENTER$966,043
- HOMELESS HEALTHCARE LA$911,329
- LOS ANGELES CHRISTIAN HEALTH CENTER$625,801
- DOWNTOWN WOMEN'S CENTER$542,011
- CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF LOS ANGELES$375,570
- SABAN COMMUNITY CLINIC$208,180
- PEOPLE ASSISTING THE HOMELESS$200,000
- VENICE FAMILY CLINIC$176,237
- ANTELOPE VALLEY PARTNERS FOR HEALTH$52,777
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 (FY20–23, $12.7M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14% — the area typically sits at 12%. 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.
91%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$20M · 11 repeat orgs$2.0M to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +98% since the first grant, against -7% for the ones you funded once.
11 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2023, 1 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
11
4
Total granted
$20M
$2.0M
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+98%
-7%
Still filing today
91%
25%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2023, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Human ServicesHealthCommunity ImprovementOther
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
- TCTHE CENTER AT BLESSED SACRAMENT4× · 2020–2023 · $5.0M · revenue +258% · 55% of their budget
- HHHOMELESS HEALTHCARE LA4× · 2020–2023 · $3.8M · revenue +95%
LOS ANGELES LGBT CENTER4× · 2020–2023 · $3.3M · revenue +36%
Funded once
- LILAMP INCone grant, 2018 · $1.9M
- TRTHE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAone grant, 2022 · $35k
- CMCLARE MATRIXone grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue -26%
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
Via Care Community Health Center
Providing health care services to the poor and underserved of los angeles.
Health
2
The Children's Clinic
For over 80 years, tcc family health (tcc), has been responding to community identified health needs and working to address health disparities and inequities. see schedule o.
—
3
Mental Health America of Los Angeles
Mental health services, advocacy, workforce training, and education.
—
4
Faculty Physicians & Surgeons of Llusm
The employment of the clinical faculty of Loma Linda University School of Medicine. Faculty Physicians and Surgeons assists in the formation of Christian Physicians educated to serve as generalists and specialists providing competent…
Health
5
Children's Hospital Los Angeles
Promotion and advancement of children's health through patient care, research, and education.
Health
6
La Family Housing Corp
Low-income housing the mission of l.a. family housing is to help people transition out of homelessness and poverty through a continuum of housing enriched with
—
7
Los Angeles Medical Center Foundation
Health
8
Alliance for Housing and Healing
We provide housing and support services for low-income persons with hiv/aids and other illnesses.
—
9
The Clinic Inc
To provide high quality, customer-friendly primary care and related to all residents of south los angeles, especially those who are underserved.
—
10
Los Angeles County Medical Association
Lacma is at the forefront of medicine in la county to ensure that members are represented in the areas of public policy, government relations and physician well-being. lacma's solemn duty is to preserve and protect the noble pursuit of…
—
11
Los Angeles Accessible Apartments C
—
12
Family Health Care Centers
Aims to enhance the quality of life for men, women, and children in the greater los angeles area.
Health
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Homeless Health Care Los Angeles and the most unlike its peers is Downtown Women's Center. 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
12 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2024.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/12
Grantees still filing
10/12
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Human Services$12,720,366Other$5,687,226Health$3,778,545Community Improvement$96,975
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 THE CENTER AT BLESSED SACRAMENT ↗
- Who funds HOMELESS HEALTHCARE LA ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES LGBT CENTER ↗
- Who funds LAMP INC ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES CHRISTIAN HEALTH CENTER ↗
- Who funds DOWNTOWN WOMEN'S CENTER ↗
- Who funds CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF LOS ANGELES ↗
- Who funds SABAN COMMUNITY CLINIC ↗
- Who funds VENICE FAMILY CLINIC ↗
- Who funds PEOPLE ASSISTING THE HOMELESS ↗
- Who funds ANTELOPE VALLEY PARTNERS FOR HEALTH ↗
- Who funds CLARE MATRIX ↗
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.
Shelter Partnership IncCA18.1× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Shelter Partnership Inc · California Community Foundation · Lamp Inc · Cedars-Sinai Medical Center · United Way Inc · The Rose Hills Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Weingart Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc
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 PEOPLE CONCERN 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
0get 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: THE CENTER AT BLESSED SACRAMENT.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
high risk
~1 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 3.6× since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 203022534 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 THE CENTER AT BLESSED SACRAMENT, 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
- FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 1 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2023; revenue grew over the period.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 55% 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 The People Concern?
Find your warmest path to The People Concern 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