· Private foundation
Wca Foundation
Its FY2020 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2020.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2020
- Under $10k3 grants · $20k
- $10k–50k14 grants · $320k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION | $30,000 |
| HAVEN HOUSING | $30,000 |
| MISSIONS INC | $30,000 |
| NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH SOURCE | $30,000 |
| PHYLLIS WHEATLEY COMMUNITY CENTER INC | $30,000 |
| PARK NICOLLET FOUNDATION | $27,000 |
| ST CATHERINE UNIVERSITY | $27,000 |
| SIMPSON HOUSING SERVICES INC | $20,000 |
| NORTHWESTERN HEALTH SCIENCE UNIVERSITY | $18,000 |
| CHILDREN'S DENTAL SERVICES | $18,000 |
| HMONG AMERICAN PARTNERSHIP | $15,000 |
| DAKOTA WOODLANDS | $15,000 |
| WAYSIDE RECOVERY CENTER | $15,000 |
| SMALL SUMS | $15,000 |
| GREATER MINNEAPOLIS CRISIS NURSERY | $9,000 |
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 (FY17–20, $500k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 98% 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.
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 +68% since the first grant, against +66% for the ones you funded once.
30 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2020, 22 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (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 FY2020, 39% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $206k 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
- BIBEACON INTERFAITH HOUSING COLLABORATIVE2× · 2017–2018 · $65k · revenue +60%
- MIMissions Inc Programs2× · 2019–2020 · $50k · revenue +68%
- TTUBMAN2× · 2018–2019 · $47k · revenue +54%
Funded once
- AFAMPERSAND FAMILIESgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $50k · revenue +140%
- DFDRESS FOR SUCCESS TWIN CITIESgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $30k · revenue +85%
- LALAO ASSISTANCE CENTER OF MINNone grant, 2019 · $27k
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.
Touchstone mental health provides innovative, person-centered services that foster hope, health and well-being. we envision a world where all people whose lives are affected by mental illness will flourish with effective treatment, quality…
The minnesota business partnership's mission is to maintain a high quality of life for all minnesotans by ensuring that the state's economy remains strong, globally competitive and its prospects for growth bright by working with elected…
Strengthen central mn communities through leadership in workforce excellence.
Lifeworks' mission is to partner with people with disabilities to drive change by increasing opportunity and access in the community.
To encourage, promote, support, and elect pro-choice women of all political parties to all levels of public office in minnesota.
Avivo increases well-being through recovery and career advancement while working to end homelessness.
Women's Foundation of Minnesota is a statewide community foundation investing in ending systemic inequities and driving innovation for gender and racial justice. WFM applies an Intersectional Equity Framework inclusive of gender, race,…
Move minnesota leads the movement for an equitable and sustainable transportation system that puts people first. we are passionate about connecting communities, ending the climate crisis, expanding access to jobs and resources, and…
The minnesota chamber of commerce proactively leads the business community statewide to: advance pro-business, responsible minnesota public policy that creates jobs and grows the econony; provde member services to address evolving business…
Cornerstone disrupts violence through advocacy, support, and prevention. We partner with individuals, families, and organizations to build communities free of harm.
The mission of cornerhouse is to partner with families, communities, and systems - entrusted with the safety of children, youth and vulnerable adults - to reduce trauma and end abuse.
Mn community measurement empowers stakeholders with meaningful information to drive improvement.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hispanic Advocacy and Community Empowerment Through Research and the most unlike its peers is Cornerstone. 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 36 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
88 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. 88 of the 103 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 BEACON INTERFAITH HOUSING COLLABORATIVE ↗
- Who funds MEN AS PEACEMAKERS ↗
- Who funds Missions Inc Programs ↗
- Who funds AMPERSAND FAMILIES ↗
- Who funds TUBMAN ↗
- Who funds JEREMIAH PROGRAM ↗
- Who funds ST CATHERINE UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Domestic Abuse Project Inc ↗
- Who funds DUNWOODY COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD MINNESOTA NORTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA ↗
- Who funds MOVEFWD INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S DENTAL SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNIDADES LATINAS UNIDAS EN SERVICO INC ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE ↗
- Who funds YOUTHLINK ↗
- Who funds HMONG AMERICAN PARTNERSHIP ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY DENTAL CARE ↗
- Who funds NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTHSOURCE ↗
- Who funds Phyllis Wheatley Community Center Inc ↗
- Who funds Young Women's Christian Association of St Paul ↗
- Who funds WAYSIDE HOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds HAVEN HOUSING ↗
- Who funds WOMEN'S ADVOCATES INC ↗
- Who funds DRESS FOR SUCCESS TWIN CITIES ↗
- Who funds Face to Face Health and Counseling Service Inc ↗
- Who funds NORTHWESTERN HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds PAGE EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PARK NICOLLET FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CORNERSTONE ↗
- Who funds SEWA-AIFW ↗
- Who funds OSTARA INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds Sojourner Project Inc ↗
- Who funds YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF THE NORTH ↗
- Who funds MATRIX HOUSING SERVICES ↗
- Who funds ANNA MARIE'S ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds PERSPECTIVES INC ↗
- Who funds CARS FOR NEIGHBORS INC ↗
- Who funds HOMEWARD BOUND INC ↗
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: Otto Bremer Trust · Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation · The Minneapolis Foundation · Fr Bigelow Foundation · The Richard M Schulze Family Foundation · Greater Twin Cities United Way · Hardenbergh Foundation · Mardag Foundation · Medica Foundation · Edina Realty Foundation · Target Foundation · Pohlad Family Foundation
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 Wca 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 Wca Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Wca 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.