Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersAlso receives grants — funding profile →
Plinth

· Public charity

Wellness Advocacy Fund

Promotion of social welfare to other 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations

$5.3M
Granted FY2024still arriving
35
Grants FY2024still arriving
12
States reached
$500k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.

Public Benefit$10MCivil Rights$3.9MEnvironment$1.4MEducation$275kCommunity Improvement$250kPhilanthropy$150kHuman Services$75k
02FY2024 · 35 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
  • $50k–250k28 grants · $3.2M
  • $250k+6 grants · $2.0M
$100,000
Median grant
12
States reached
$29M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Somos PAC$500,000
Tides Advocacy$400,000
Center for Voter Information$350,000
Rural Arizona Action$250,000
Sixteen Thirty Fund - Climate Equity$250,000
The PAC for America's Future$250,000
Stand Up America$200,000
Leaders We Deserve$200,000
Voces de La Frontera Action Inc$200,000
Indivisible Project$200,000
America Votes$200,000
Way to Win Action Fund$150,000
Reset Tech Action$150,000
Alliance for Youth Action$150,000
Sixteen Thirty Fund-Galvanize Action$150,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY21–24, $825k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 91% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Living United for Change in Arizona: $150k → 11%MomsRising Together: $75k → 9%CASA in Action Inc: $100k → 11%Living United for Change in Arizona: $150k → 11%CASA in Action Inc: $100k → 11%Living United for Change in Arizona: $100k → 11%CASA in Action Inc: $100k → 11%Living United for Chagne in Arizona: $50k → 11%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

AK
NH
WA
MT
IL
WI
MI
NY
OR
PA
CA
UT
VA
MD
AZ
DC
GA
FL

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.

04

Where the work is directed

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

About 10% of Wellness Advocacy Fund’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.

Wellness Advocacy Fundlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

73%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$9.8M · 23 repeat orgs$3.6M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +44% since the first grant, against -31% for the ones you funded once.

23 repeat relationships — 18 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

23
18

Total granted

$9.8M
$1.9M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+44%
-31%

Still filing today

78%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 61% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.7M went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesEducationPublic BenefitPhilanthropyOther

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

  • WT
    WAY TO WIN ACTION FUND INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.4M · revenue +0%
  • AV
    America Votes
    3× · 2022–2024 · $1.0M · revenue +189%
  • CF
    CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION
    3× · 2022–2024 · $850k · revenue +95%

Funded once

  • MF
    MAJORITY FORWARD
    one grant, 2020 · $400k · revenue +14%
  • BM
    BLACK MALE VOTER PROJECT
    one grant, 2020 · $200k
  • BV
    Black Voters Matter Fund Incgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $200k · revenue +86%

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

04Your field

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.

1
Defend the Vote Action Fund

To sustain and support the prioritization of comprehensive voting rights and democracy reform legislation at all levels of government.

—
2
Issue One Action

Issue one action is uniting republicans, democrats, and independents to protect our elections and fix our political system. we are committed to free, fair, and secure elections and reducing the influence of well-financed special interests…

—
3
Register America

The organization is founded for social welfare purposes, including assisting with voter registration and advocating for policies which lead to increased voter registration in the united states.

—
4
Democracy Works Inc

The organization's mission is to leverage web-technologies to improve civic engagement and voter education.

Civil Rights
5
Coalition for Dc Representation in Congress Education Fund

Founded in 1998, dc vote is a national citizen engagement and advocacy organization dedicated to strengthening democracy and securing equality for all in the district of columbia.

Education
6
Act for America

Advocacy concerning democratic values, national security and defense; lobbying of government officials in favor of policies that further the defense of the u.s. and its constitution; development of coalitions with other organizations to…

Civil Rights
7
Democracy Forward

See schedule o.this organization seeks to build collective power to defend and advance a vibrant democracy that benefits all people.

—
8
RepresentUs

RepresentUs is America's leading nonpartisan grassroots organization working for a government accountable to the people. We unite people from all backgrounds to defend democracy, root out corruption, mobilize action, and support campaigns…

Public Benefit
9
Voteamerica

The mission of voteamerica is to strengthen united states democracy by increasing voter turnout.

Civil Rights
10
Fair Democracy

Fair democracy works to ensure that the roots of american democracy are healthy with strong voting rights and access, an engaged and informed electorate, an open and accountable government and trusted messengers engaging americans in civil…

Civil Rights
11
Verified Voting Foundation

Strengthen democracy for all voters by promoting the responsible use of technology in all elections.

—
12
Right to Democracy Action

Advance democracy, equity, and self-determination in u.s. territories, including by promoting civic engagement among the territorial diaspora throughout the united states.

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Stand Up America Inc and the most unlike its peers is Pontiac Policy Action Fund. 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.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyPolicy Research and AdvocacyImmigrant Worker SupportYouth Development ServicesChild Abuse Advocacy Servic…Women & Girls Leadership De…
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 8 years old; the field is 18. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number20%12%<5yr14%52%5–10yr18%24%10–20yr18%9%20–35yr16%3%35–55yr15%0%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value20%5%<5yr14%41%5–10yr18%39%10–20yr18%15%20–35yr16%1%35–55yr15%0%55yr+

The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 12% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
4%2/52
the rest of the field
12%
1,600/12,949

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.

05the grantee network

42 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. 42 of the 52 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
39/42
Grantees still filing
17/42
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

WAY TO WIN ACTION FUND INC — $1,350,000 · Civil RightsWAY TO WIN ACTION FUND INCCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION — $850,000 · Civil RightsCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATIONALLIANCE FOR YOUTH ACTION — $600,000 · Civil RightsALLIANCE FOR YOUTH ACTIONINDIVISIBLE PROJECT — $600,000 · Civil RightsINDIVISIBLE PROJECTFORWARD ACTION FUND — $400,000 · Civil RightsFORWARD ACTION FUNDEND CITIZENS UNITED LET AMERICA VOTE ACTION FUND — $350,000 · Civil RightsEND CITIZENS UNITED LET AMERICA VOTE ACTION…MAKE THE ROAD ACTION INC — $300,000 · Civil RightsASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC — $250,000 · Civil RightsRURAL ARIZONA ACTION — $250,000 · Civil RightsVOCES DE LA FRONTERA ACTION INC — $250,000 · Civil Rights+10 more — $1,025,000 · Civil Rights+10 moreTIDES ADVOCACY — $725,000 · OtherTIDES ADVOCACYSOMOS PAC — $500,000 · OtherSOMOS PACTHE PAC FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE — $450,000 · OtherTHE PAC FOR AMERICA'S FUTUR…Way to Lead PAC — $400,000 · OtherWay to Lead PACMAJORITY FORWARD — $400,000 · OtherMAJORITY FORWARDBLACK MALE VOTER PROJECT — $200,000 · OtherLeaders We Deserve — $200,000 · OtherCHISPA AZ PAC — $200,000 · OtherBlack Voters Matter Fund Inc — $200,000 · OtherCASA IN ACTION PAC INC — $150,000 · Other+8 more — $600,000 · Other+8 moreSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND — $3,050,000 · EnvironmentSIXTEEN THIRTY FUNDAmerica Votes — $1,000,000 · Community ImprovementHOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD — $100,000 · Community ImprovementAlaska Progressive Donor Table — $75,000 · Community ImprovementPENNSYLVANIA STANDS UP INC — $50,000 · Community ImprovementLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA — $450,000 · Human ServicesCASA IN ACTION INC — $300,000 · Human ServicesMOMSRISING TOGETHER — $75,000 · Human ServicesWe the People MI — $250,000 · EducationFAIR FIGHT ACTION INC — $200,000 · EducationRISE ACTION FUND — $100,000 · EducationFUTURE NOW ACTION — $300,000 · Public BenefitProgress Michigan Inc — $25,000 · Public BenefitRESET TECH ACTION — $150,000 · Philanthropy
Civil Rights$6,225,000Other$4,025,000Environment$3,050,000Community Improvement$1,225,000Human Services$825,000Education$550,000Public Benefit$325,000Philanthropy$150,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetSIXTEEN THIRTY FUND — $3,050,000 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetWAY TO WIN ACTION FUND INC — $1,350,000 over 5y, 3.0% of budgetAmerica Votes — $1,000,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION — $850,000 over 3y, 6.5% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY — $725,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetALLIANCE FOR YOUTH ACTION — $600,000 over 4y, 8.3% of budgetINDIVISIBLE PROJECT — $600,000 over 4y, 1.9% of budgetLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA — $450,000 over 4y, 4.6% of budgetFORWARD ACTION FUND — $400,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetEND CITIZENS UNITED LET AMERICA VOTE ACTION FUND — $350,000 over 3y, 14% of budgetMAKE THE ROAD ACTION INC — $300,000 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetCASA IN ACTION INC — $300,000 over 3y, 4.1% of budgetFUTURE NOW ACTION — $300,000 over 2y, 5.7% of budgetWe the People MI — $250,000 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC — $250,000 over 4y, 3.4% of budgetRURAL ARIZONA ACTION — $250,000 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetVOCES DE LA FRONTERA ACTION INC — $250,000 over 2y, 5.4% of budgetSTAND UP AMERICA INC — $200,000 over 1y, 9.7% of budgetBLACK MALE VOTER PROJECT — $200,000 over 1y, 6.0% of budgetFAIR FIGHT ACTION INC — $200,000 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetBlack Voters Matter Fund Inc — $200,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetCENTER FOR EMPOWERED POLITICS EDUCATION FUND — $175,000 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetIndian American Impact — $150,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetRESET TECH ACTION — $150,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC — $125,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetPROTECT DEMOCRACY UNITED — $100,000 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetHOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD — $100,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetMI FAMILIA VOTA — $100,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetRISE ACTION FUND — $100,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetPRIORITIES USA — $100,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMOMSRISING TOGETHER — $75,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetAlaska Progressive Donor Table — $75,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetFLORIDA RISING INC — $50,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetRUP INC — $50,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetNATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND — $50,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNEW GEORGIA PROJECT INC — $50,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetINDIGENOUS VOTE — $50,000 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetPENNSYLVANIA STANDS UP INC — $50,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetCOMMON POWER — $25,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetProgress Michigan Inc — $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budget
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.

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.

Sixteen Thirty FundAmerica VotesTides AdvocacyAll Hands on Deck Net…Open Society Action F…NEO Philanthropy Acti…Way to Win Action Fun…Women Donors Network …Tides FoundationOur American Future A…Pro-Democracy CampaignFuture Forward USA Ac…
Sixteen Thirty FundDC59.5× affinity28 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · America Votes · Tides Advocacy · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Open Society Action Fund Inc · NEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · Women Donors Network Action · Tides Foundation · Our American Future Action · Pro-Democracy Campaign · Future Forward USA Action

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 Wellness Advocacy Fund 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.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 20%1%4%8%15%your 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
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24

    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.

    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Wellness Advocacy Fund?

    Find your warmest path to Wellness Advocacy Fund 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 52 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    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 camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home
    State money flows
    the interactive map of money crossing state lines