Skip to content
UFW Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

UFW Foundation

The UFW Foundation's mission is to empower communities to ensure human dignity.

$14M
Granted FY2020
3
Grants FY2020
1
States reached
$1.7M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2020.

Crime & Legal$2.9MHuman Services$1.6MEducation$765kCivil Rights$438kInternational$253kEmployment$146kPhilanthropy$50kPublic Benefit$17kOther$0
02FY2020 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $2,733,746, the rows itemized in this filing. The $14,453,821 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $11,720,075 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2020

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $127k
  • $250k+2 grants · $2.6M
$926,258
Median grant
1
States reached
$15M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Immigrant Legal Defense$1,680,299
Individual grant recipient$926,258
Centro La Familia Advocacy Se$127,189
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY18–18, $53k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Casa Familiar: $53k → 11%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
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.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

75%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.6M · 7 repeat orgs$1.6M to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2020, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
5

Total granted

$4.6M
$626k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+182%
+203%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $926k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20
Crime & LegalEmploymentEducationInternationalHuman ServicesPhilanthropyOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • IL
    IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE
    2× · 2019–2020 · $2.7M · revenue ×19 · 61% of their budget
  • EA
    Education and Leadership Foundation
    2× · 2018–2019 · $765k · revenue +182% · 25% of their budget
  • CL
    Centro La Familia Advocacy Services INC
    3× · 2018–2020 · $626k · revenue +142%

Funded once

  • CA
    Community Action Boardgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $438k · revenue +203%
  • UF
    UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA
    one grant, 2018 · $104k · revenue +20%
  • CASA FAMILIAR INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $53k · revenue +219%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Centro Legal De La Raza

Centro Legal De La Raza is a comprehensive legal services agency protecting and advancing the rights of low-income immigrant communities throguh culturally competent bilingual legal representation, education, and advocacy.

Crime & Legal
2
Colectiva Legal Del Pueblo

Colectiva Legal del Pueblo is a non-hierarchal collective organization founded for and by undocumented immigrants working to build community leadership and power for migrant justice through legal services, advocacy and education.

Civil Rights
3
California Center for Movement Legal Services

The California Center for Movement Legal Services (Movement Legal) provides legal services in the pursuit of improving the lives of California's traditionally underserved residents, carrying out legal work that fosters community led policy…

Crime & Legal
4
Legal Link

Legal Link removes legal barriers that prolong poverty by adding critically needed capacity to the legal ecosystem.

Crime & Legal
5
Center for Community Advocacy

Provide Educational Programs, Health Services and Legal Services to Farm Workers at housing sites and throughout the Salinas Valley and promote improved living conditions.

—
6
Fuerza LaboralPower of Workers

Fuerza Laboral is a workers' rights center whose mission is to shift the balance of power in our economy in favor of workers by educating, training, and organizing workers to become community leaders; taking direct action to recover unpaid…

Education
7
California Lawyers Foundation

The California Lawyers Foundation shares a common mission with the California Lawyers Association of promoting excellence, diversity, and inclusion in the legal profession and fairness in the administration of justice and the rule of law.…

Education
8
La Raza Centro Legal - San Francisco

La Raza Centro Legal San Francisco provides high quality, highly trusted, free legal services to low-income or immigrant clients in the San Francisco Bay Area.

—
9
Centro De Ayuda Legal Para Imigrantes of Mountain View

The organization's primary mission is to provide immigration legal services and community education about immigration law. this involves legal representation to the low-income immigrant community, including help to those brought to the us…

Crime & Legal
10
Central American Legal Assistance

Provide free or low cost legal assistance to latino asylum-seekers.

Human Services
11
Southern California Immigration Project

Southern California Immigration Project is a public interest nonprofit organization dedicated to providing pro bono legal services to survivors of human and civil rights violations.

International
12
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation

The mission of CRLAF is to achieve social justice and equity in partnership with farmworkers and the underserved in rural communities through community, legislative and legal advocacy. Our vision is for all farmworkers and their families…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Centro La Familia Advocacy Services Inc; the most unlike its peers is Youth 2 Leaders Education Foundatio. 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 tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 12 of the 13 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
12/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE: $2,669,225 · Crime & LegalIMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSECENTRAL CALIFORNIA LEGAL SERVICES INC: $170,103 · Crime & LegalCENTRAL CALIFORNIA LEGAL SERVICES INCIndividual grant recipient: $926,258 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCentro La Familia Advocacy Services INC: $626,202 · OtherCentro La Familia Advocacy Serv…UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA: $104,126 · OtherUNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA+2 more: $31,450 · OtherEducation and Leadership Foundation: $765,316 · EducationEducation and …Community Action Board: $437,974 · EmploymentOrganizacion en California de Lideres Campesinas Inc: $41,565 · EmploymentCentro Binacional Para El Desarrollo Indigena Oaxaqueno: $252,984 · InternationalCASA FAMILIAR INC: $52,900 · Human ServicesYOUTH 2 LEADERS EDUCATION FOUNDATIO: $49,900 · Philanthropy
Crime & Legal$2,839,328Other$1,688,036Education$765,316Employment$479,539International$252,984Human Services$52,900Philanthropy$49,900

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetIMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE: $2,669,225 over 2y, 61% of budgetEducation and Leadership Foundation: $765,316 over 2y, 25% of budgetCentro La Familia Advocacy Services INC: $626,202 over 3y, 12% of budgetCommunity Action Board: $437,974 over 1y, 12% of budgetCentro Binacional Para El Desarrollo Indigena Oaxaqueno: $252,984 over 2y, 20% of budgetCENTRAL CALIFORNIA LEGAL SERVICES INC: $170,103 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetUNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA: $104,126 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetCASA FAMILIAR INC: $52,900 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetYOUTH 2 LEADERS EDUCATION FOUNDATIO: $49,900 over 2y, 3.5% of budgetOrganizacion en California de Lideres Campesinas Inc: $41,565 over 2y, 3.1% of budgetMI FAMILIA EN ACCION: $17,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCentral Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy: $14,450 over 1y, 0.9% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Immigrant Legal Resou…The California Endowm…Catholic Legal Immigr…Latino Community Foun…Sierra Health Foundat…East Bay Community Fo…Kaiser Foundation Hos…Public Health Institu…California Immigrant …California Access to …Women's Foundation of…Sunlight Giving
Immigrant Legal Resource CenterCA22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Immigrant Legal Resource Center · The California Endowment · Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc · Latino Community Foundation · Sierra Health Foundation Center for Health Program Management · East Bay Community Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Public Health Institute · California Immigrant Policy Center · California Access to Justice Commission · Women's Foundation of California · Sunlight Giving

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization UFW Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from UFW Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to UFW Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to UFW 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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 13 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $35M of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2020, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on UFW’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home