· Private foundation
Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k19 grants · $36k
- $10k–50k25 grants · $637k
- $50k–250k627 grants · $85M
- $250k+430 grants · $240M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| AMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE INC | $9,750,000 |
| NEO PHILANTHROPY INC | $6,500,000 |
| HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC | $4,875,000 |
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP) EMPOWERM | $3,000,000 |
| WINDWARD FUND | $2,950,000 |
| FUND FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS | $2,740,000 |
| AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC | $2,550,000 |
| THE AGENCY FUND | $2,500,000 |
| MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY | $2,250,000 |
| INNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION A NONPROFIT CORPORATION | $2,250,000 |
| GDI SOLUTIONS INC | $2,048,310 |
| AMALGAMATED CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC | $2,000,000 |
| ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH ORGANIZING | $2,000,000 |
| ACCELERATE CHANGE INC | $2,000,000 |
| NEW VENTURE FUND | $2,000,000 |
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 US giving — 77% of grant dollars ($1.7B). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 23% that went abroad ($526M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $28.6M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 99% 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
Beyond the US — 23% of all-years giving ($526M)
62 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 13% of Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc’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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +35% since the first grant, against +19% for the ones you funded once.
1113 repeat relationships — 679 still active in FY2024, 434 since wound down; 136 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, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $39M 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
NEO Philanthropy Inc8× · 2017–2024 · $53M · revenue +191%- HRHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC8× · 2017–2024 · $43M · revenue +53%
- FFFUND FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS INC8× · 2017–2024 · $25M · revenue +2%
Funded once
- SESTICHTING EUROPEAN CLIMATE FOUNDATIONone grant, 2020 · $45M
UNITED STATES ENERGY FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $19M · revenue +40%- TSTHE SUNRISE PROJECT LIMITEDone grant, 2020 · $8.0M
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.
To lead and coordinate the global initiative to address and prevent criminalization, violence, and impunity against indigenous peoples towards strengthening their collectives, solidarity, and actions.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
The center for international policy is a woman-led, progressive, independent nonprofit center for research, education, and advocacy working to advance a more peaceful, just, and sustainable u.s. approach to foreign policy. through…
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
Educational & charitable. to provide legal and scientific information to public interest attorneys and scientists in numerous countries.
Common future is a network of pioneering leaders across the u.s. and canada who work deeply within their communities to create alternative approaches to business, philanthropy, and investing. we envision an economy that has transitioned…
Partnersglobal (partners) works through a global network to support local leaders and create partnerships that transform conflict, strengthen democratic institutions, and achieve sustainable development.
A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.
Our mission is to create a fair and inclusive economy where underserved people have quality financial choices and opportunities to improve their economic well-being. we find and help build innovative companies with the potential to reach…
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
Our mission as a global alliance is to provide strategies, research, and resources that support the critical agency and influence of women's foundations and gender justice funders in the movement for equality, justice, and power for all.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Policylink and the most unlike its peers is Friends of the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa. 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 25 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.7% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
931 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. 931 of the 1,677 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE INC ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
- Who funds HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds FUND FOR GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds INNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BOREALIS PHILANTHROPY ↗
- Who funds PROTEUS FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES ENERGY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds STATE VOICES ↗
- Who funds ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC ↗
- Who funds THE ASTRAEA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds GDI-SOLUTIONS INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ↗
- Who funds WINDWARD FUND ↗
- Who funds COMMON COUNSEL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds FAITH IN ACTION NETWORK ↗
- Who funds Groundswell Fund ↗
- Who funds AMERICANS FOR OXFORD INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION WESTERN HEMISPHERE REGION ↗
- Who funds COMMON CAUSE EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC ↗
- Who funds CRISIS ACTION INC ↗
- Who funds GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds DISABILITY RIGHTS FUND INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY INC ↗
- Who funds BUSARA CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS 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: Foundation to Promote Open Society · NEO Philanthropy Inc · The Ford Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · Borealis Philanthropy · New Venture Fund · Hopewell Fund · Groundswell Fund · The Heising-Simons Foundation · Foundation for a Just Society · Freedom Together 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 Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc 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.
- National Bureau of Economic Research Inc — 48% of income from government
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- Community Catalyst Inc — 15% of income from government
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Centerlink Inc — 12% of income from government
- Disability Rights Fund Inc — 10% of income from government
- Ibis Reproductive Health Inc — 9% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Third Sector New England Inc — 3% of income from government
- Ceres Inc — 0% of income from government
- Glbtq Legal Advocates & Defenders Inc — 0% of income from government
- Oxfam-America Inc — 0% of income from government
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 Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc?
Find your warmest path to Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc 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.