· Public charity
The Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Foundation
The sole activity of the charity is the making of charitable contributions to organizations that have been recognized by the internal revenue service as tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code (the "code"), but are not "private foundations" within the meaning of section 509(a) of the code.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 11 grants below total $649,600 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $715,850 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $66,250 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k8 grants · $181k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $469k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE KANSAS UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION | $170,000 |
| THRIVE SCHOLARS | $150,000 |
| EQUAL JUSTICE WORKS | $149,000 |
| LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF SF BAY AREA | $48,100 |
| JUSTICE AND DIVERSITY CENTER OF THE BAR ASSOCIATIO | $42,500 |
| AMERICAN RED CROSS | $25,000 |
| MID-ATLANTIC INNOCENCE PROJECT | $25,000 |
| WESTERN CENTER ON LAW & POVERTY | $10,000 |
| SAN FRANCISCO FOOD BANK | $10,000 |
| CITY HARVEST | $10,000 |
| THE MIDNIGHT MISSION | $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 (FY20–25, $75k) 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +10% since the first grant, against +2% for the ones you funded once.
15 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2025, 6 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, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $195k 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
- TSTHRIVE SCHOLARS3× · 2022–2025 · $395k · revenue +55%
- TJTHE JUSTICE AND DIVERSITY CENTER OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO5× · 2020–2025 · $257k · revenue +47%
- LCLawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area4× · 2022–2025 · $195k · revenue +27%
Funded once
- BGBLACK GIRL VENTURES FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $75k · revenue +2%
- HOHANDS ON NASHVILLE INCone grant, 2020 · $50k · revenue -14%
MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INCone grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue +13%
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.
The district of columbia bar foundation was established to raise funds for organizations in the district that provide hands-on legal services to residents who are unable to afford legal assistance.
Public counsel is a nonprofit public interest law firm dedicated to advancing civil rights and racial and economic justice, as well as to amplifying the power of our clients through comprehensive legal advocacy. (see sch o for…
The mission of the maryland volunteer lawyers service (mvls) is to remove barriers to justice through free civil legal help, community engagement, and advocacy for equitable laws. (see schedule o for the complete mission statement.)
Food forward fights hunger and prevents food waste by rescuing fresh surplus produce, connecting this abundance with people experiencing food insecurity, and inspiring others to do the same.
Dedicated to assisting those in need by alleviating their immediate pain and problems and moving them toward self-sufficiency and financial independence.
The minnesota justice foundation creates opportunities for law students to engage in public interest and pro bono legal service and increases the capacity of legal organizations that serve the public interest.
DC Affordable Law Firm delivers accessible justice to modest-income DC residents who do not qualify for traditional sources of free civil legal services and cannot afford standard representation. Our innovative programming expands access…
In recognition of the fundamental principles of the universal declaration of human rights, international bridges to justice (ibj) is dedicated to protecting the basic legal rights of ordinary citizens in developing countries. specifically,…
The Asian Law Caucus's mission is to promote, advance, and represent the legal and civil rights of Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities, recognizing that social, economic, political and racial inequalities continue to exist…
To build a better justice system for all californians.
The center for justice innovation is a non-profit organization that works to create a fair, effective, and humane justice system and build strong, thriving communities.
The D.C. Bar Pro Bono Center provides free legal services through pro bono lawyers to low-income individuals, nonprofit organizations and small businesses primarily in the District of Columbia. The Pro Bono Center also recruits and trains…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Equal Justice Works and the most unlike its peers is Central Texas Food Bank Foundation. 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.
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 43 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
25 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.
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 EQUAL JUSTICE WORKS ↗
- Who funds THRIVE SCHOLARS ↗
- Who funds THE JUSTICE AND DIVERSITY CENTER OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO ↗
- Who funds Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area ↗
- Who funds The Kansas University Endowment Association ↗
- Who funds ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK FUND INC ↗
- Who funds MID-ATLANTIC INNOCENCE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds BLACK GIRL VENTURES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA WESTERN SCHOOL OF LAW ↗
- Who funds CITY HARVEST INC ↗
- Who funds El Dorado Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds HANDS ON NASHVILLE INC ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds THE MIDNIGHT MISSION ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds Western Center on Law & Poverty Inc ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS INC ↗
- Who funds CAPITAL AREA FOOD BANK INC ↗
- Who funds The Houston Food Bank ↗
- Who funds CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds BREAD FOR THE CITY INC ↗
- Who funds EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds PRESIDENT-BOARD OF TRUSTEES SANTA CLARA COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds TIDES 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.
Open a dossier: The Morrison & Foerster Foundation · Venable Foundation Inc · The Sidley Austin Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Mc Dermott Will and Emery Charitable Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Network for Good
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 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 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 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 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.