Skip to content
Water From Wine at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Water From Wine

Providing a funding source for global clean water projects by marketing wine from our founder's vineyard.

$165k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$54k
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 2024.

International$373kEnvironment$335kPhilanthropy$306k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $125,254, the rows itemized in this filing. The $164,880 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $39,626 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $56k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $54k
$12,500
Median grant
3
States reached
$510k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%WITH MY OWN TWO HANDS FOUNDATION: $6k → 10%WATER4: $7k → 16%DROP IN THE BUCKET: $7k → 14%WATER4: $6k → 16%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.

Which US states its grants reach

VT
WA
NY
IN
CA
CO
SC
OK
AL
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 24% of Water From Wine’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 85% of the giving stays in WA; by stated purpose, 65%.

Water From Winelessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$865k · 9 repeat orgs$149k to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
13

Total granted

$865k
$128k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+11%
+36%

Still filing today

89%
92%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
InternationalHuman ServicesPhilanthropyEnvironmentCommunity ImprovementReligionOther
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

  • WA
    WATER ACCESS NOW
    7× · 2018–2024 · $189k · revenue +33% · 26% of their budget
  • EP
    ETTA Projects
    4× · 2019–2023 · $79k · revenue +45%
  • GW
    GRAVITY WATER
    3× · 2018–2021 · $34k · revenue ×12

Funded once

  • RM
    REHEMA MINISTRIESgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $19k · revenue +28%
  • TS
    THE SAMBURU PROJECT INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $12k · revenue +92%
  • SO
    SPRING OF HOPE INTERNATIONAL
    one grant, 2022 · $11k · revenue -39%
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
Water for the World
International
2
Second Nile Global Corp

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…

International
3
Wash for Life Inc

To Provide clean water to communities in Malawi, Africa

Human Services
4
Lifetime Wells for Ghana Inc

Dig wells to provide water.

—
5
Water for Life Foundation Inc
International
6
Charity Global Inc

Charity: water is a non-profit organization bringing clean and safe water to people around the world. continued on schedule o.

Human Services
7
Freshwater Project International Inc

To provide water and sanitation to the people of malawi.

Human Services
8
Strides for Africa Inc

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…

Public Benefit
9
DRILL4LIFE Inc

Drill water wells in the country of zimbabwe

International
10
Water Engineers for the Americas

Water sanitation projects for facilities and communities in economically disadvantaged areas of latin america and africa.

International
11
Rise Relief Inc

Rise relief's primary mission is providing clean water to underserved communities in benin and nigeria, with a vision to expand across africa.

Community Improvement
12
Water Is Basic

To provide clean drinking water for individuals and families living in poverty around the world with a primary emphasis in africa.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Water First International; 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.
05the grantee network

22 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. 22 of the 24 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/22
Grantees still filing
16/22
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WATER FIRST INTERNATIONAL: $463,746 · PhilanthropyWATER FIRST INTERNATIONALWATER ACCESS NOW: $189,105 · PhilanthropyWATER ACCESS NOW+1 more: $10,000 · PhilanthropyETTA Projects: $78,770 · InternationalETTA ProjectsGRAVITY WATER: $33,840 · InternationalGRAVITY WATERTHE SAMBURU PROJECT INC: $12,450 · InternationalTHE SAMBURU PROJEC…Water Charity: $10,025 · InternationalWater CharityUgandan Water Project: $10,000 · InternationalUgandan Water Proj…THE THIRST PROJECT: $10,000 · InternationalTHE THIRST PROJECTWATER MISSIONS INTERNATIONAL: $7,885 · InternationalTHE BRIDGE OF COMMUNITY AND HOPE: $5,985 · InternationalHILLSPRING CHURCH: $23,906 · OtherREHEMA MINISTRIES: $19,430 · OtherPURE WATER FOR THE WORLD INC: $10,000 · OtherROTARY CLUB OF EAST WENATCHEE: $9,450 · OtherFREE METHODIST CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA: $7,000 · OtherCLEAN WATER FOR HAITI: $25,855 · EnvironmentEARTH GIVERS INC: $17,086 · EnvironmentWATER4 INC: $12,740 · Human ServicesSPRING OF HOPE INTERNATIONAL: $10,500 · Human ServicesDROP IN THE BUCKET: $7,140 · Human ServicesWITH MY OWN TWO HANDS FOUNDATION: $6,195 · Human ServicesOlympia Rotary Foundation: $20,071 · Community ImprovementFriends of the Great Commission: $12,500 · Religion
Philanthropy$662,851International$168,955Other$69,786Environment$42,941Human Services$36,575Community Improvement$20,071Religion$12,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWATER FIRST INTERNATIONAL: $463,746 over 7y, 6.1% of budgetWATER ACCESS NOW: $189,105 over 7y, 26% of budgetETTA Projects: $78,770 over 4y, 9.2% of budgetGRAVITY WATER: $33,840 over 3y, 13% of budgetCLEAN WATER FOR HAITI: $25,855 over 2y, 7.0% of budgetOlympia Rotary Foundation: $20,071 over 3y, 5.6% of budgetREHEMA MINISTRIES: $19,430 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetEARTH GIVERS INC: $17,086 over 2y, 42% of budgetWATER4 INC: $12,740 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFriends of the Great Commission: $12,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE SAMBURU PROJECT INC: $12,450 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetSPRING OF HOPE INTERNATIONAL: $10,500 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetWater Charity: $10,025 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetWATER282: $10,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetUgandan Water Project: $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetPURE WATER FOR THE WORLD INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetTHE THIRST PROJECT: $10,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetROTARY CLUB OF EAST WENATCHEE: $9,450 over 1y, 22% of budgetWATER MISSIONS INTERNATIONAL: $7,885 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDROP IN THE BUCKET: $7,140 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetWITH MY OWN TWO HANDS FOUNDATION: $6,195 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetTHE BRIDGE OF COMMUNITY AND HOPE: $5,985 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.

Vanguard Charitable E…Gs Donor Advised Phil…Natl Christian Charit…The Blackbaud Giving …Raymond James Charita…American Online Givin…Network for GoodAmerican Endowment Fo…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Paypal Charitable Giv…National Philanthropi…
Vanguard Charitable Endowment ProgramPA9.2× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Water From Wine funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Water From Wine. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 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.

    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 24 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Water From Wine’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