· Public charity
Water From Wine
Providing a funding source for global clean water projects by marketing wine from our founder's vineyard.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 6 grants below total $125,254 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $164,880 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $39,626 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 · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $15k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $56k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $54k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WATER ACCESS NOW | $54,301 |
| WATER1ST INTERNATIONAL | $32,661 |
| THE FRIENDS OF THE GREAT COMMISSION | $12,500 |
| EARTH GIVERS | $10,541 |
| WATER MISSION | $7,885 |
| OLYMPIA ROTARY FOUNDATION | $7,366 |
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 (FY21–22, $26k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 76% 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 24% of Water From Wine’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 85% of the giving stays in WA; read by stated purpose it is 65% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
9 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k 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
- WAWATER ACCESS NOW7× · 2018–2024 · $189k · revenue +33% · 26% of their budget
- EPETTA Projects4× · 2019–2023 · $79k · revenue +50%
- GWGRAVITY WATER3× · 2018–2021 · $34k · revenue ×12
Funded once
- RMREHEMA MINISTRIESgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $19k · revenue +28%
- TSTHE SAMBURU PROJECT INCgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $12k · revenue +92%
- SOSPRING OF HOPE INTERNATIONALone grant, 2022 · $11k · revenue -39%
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.
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 Provide clean water to communities in Malawi, Africa
Dig wells to provide water.
Charity: water is a non-profit organization bringing clean and safe water to people around the world. continued on schedule o.
To provide water and sanitation to the people of malawi.
Exposed to the water crisis in rural Africa during the adoption of a child, we initiate action through educational outreach and events that fund sustainable clean water sources or projects providing educational/health benefits for rural…
Drill water wells in the country of zimbabwe
Water sanitation projects for facilities and communities in economically disadvantaged areas of latin america and africa.
Rise relief's primary mission is providing clean water to underserved communities in benin and nigeria, with a vision to expand across africa.
To provide clean drinking water for individuals and families living in poverty around the world with a primary emphasis in africa.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Water First International and the most unlike its peers is Rotary Club of East Wenatchee. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
22 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. 22 of the 24 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 WATER FIRST INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds WATER ACCESS NOW ↗
- Who funds ETTA Projects ↗
- Who funds GRAVITY WATER ↗
- Who funds CLEAN WATER FOR HAITI ↗
- Who funds Olympia Rotary Foundation ↗
- Who funds REHEMA MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds EARTH GIVERS INC ↗
- Who funds WATER4 INC ↗
- Who funds Friends of the Great Commission ↗
- Who funds THE SAMBURU PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds SPRING OF HOPE INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds Water Charity ↗
- Who funds Ugandan Water Project ↗
- Who funds PURE WATER FOR THE WORLD INC ↗
- Who funds WATER282 ↗
- Who funds THE THIRST PROJECT ↗
- Who funds ROTARY CLUB OF EAST WENATCHEE ↗
- Who funds WATER MISSIONS INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds DROP IN THE BUCKET ↗
- Who funds WITH MY OWN TWO HANDS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE BRIDGE OF COMMUNITY AND HOPE ↗
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: Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Network for Good · American Endowment Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · National Philanthropic Trust
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 Water From Wine 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 Water From Wine?
Find your warmest path to Water From Wine 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.