· Private foundation
Wenwach Foundation
Its FY2025 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 FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k16 grants · $68k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN WAS | $10,000 |
| WOUNDED WARRIORS | $7,000 |
| AMERICAN UNIVERSITY | $7,000 |
| IT TAKES A VILLAGE MINISTRY INC | $6,000 |
| SERVICE DOGS OF VIRGINIA INC | $5,000 |
| DEATH WITH DIGNITY NATIONAL CENTER | $5,000 |
| COMPASSION AND CHOICES | $5,000 |
| DC ABORTION FUND | $5,000 |
| J Ashe | $4,000 |
| WARRIOR CANINE CONNECTION INC | $4,000 |
| SOUTHEASTERN GUIDE DOGS INC | $4,000 |
| NEADS INC | $4,000 |
| CENTER FOR A NEW CULTURE | $4,000 |
| DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS CHARITABLE SERVICE TRUS | $3,000 |
| HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL | $2,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $84k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 92% 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.
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.
26 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
- PPPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON DC INC9× · 2017–2025 · $90k · revenue +38%
- CCCOMPASSION & CHOICES9× · 2017–2025 · $48k · revenue +169%
- DWDEATH WITH DIGNITY NATIONAL CENTER9× · 2017–2025 · $48k · revenue +24%
Funded once
- SCSINGLE CAUSE SINGLE CUREone grant, 2017 · $2k · revenue -54%
- RSROSS SCHOOL PTAgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $1k · revenue +96%
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.
The institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the united states and globally.
Power to decide envisions a world where everyone - no matter who they are or where they live - has control over their bodies and can decide if, when, and under what circumstances to get pregnant and have a child. its mission is to advance…
To provide exceptional reproductive and complementary health care services, honest education, and advocacy for all.
The policy center is improving maternal mental health outcomes through closing gaps in care delivery, including improving detection and access to evidence-based and informed clinical and community-based care. the policy center has been…
The mission is to enable all marylanders to have access to a wide range of high quality, affordable reproductive health care services. by providing medical services, education, training and advocacy, ppm seeks to help individuals make…
We generate ideas, produce evidence, and design solutions to improve the lives of underserved populations around the world. we take a multidisciplinary, intergenerational, life-cycle approach that contributes to (see schedule o)four global…
Our mission is to improve the performance of health workers and strengthen the systems in which they work.
National institute for reproductive health, inc. works to protect and advance equitable access to reproductive health care by building power at the state and local level. using an approach that is rooted in partnerships with state and…
A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.
(msh) saves lives and improves the health of the world's poorest (see schedule o) and most vulnerable people by closing the gap between knowledge and action in public health.
The mission of Magee-Womens Research Institute and Foundation is to advance scientific knowledge in the fields of reproductive biology and women's health; translate this knowledge into improved health for women and infants; train current…
Under the medical service plan of the university of maryland, school of medicine, administrative support services are provided to the physician practices of the university of maryland, including but not limited to information technology,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc and the most unlike its peers is Single Cause Single Cure. 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 31 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
24 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. 24 of the 29 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 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON DC INC ↗
- Who funds COMPASSION & CHOICES ↗
- Who funds DEATH WITH DIGNITY NATIONAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds DC ABORTION FUND ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR A NEW CULTURE ↗
- Who funds DUPONT CIRCLE VILLAGE ↗
- Who funds NEADS INC ↗
- Who funds Mary's Center for Maternal and Child Care Inc ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Southeastern Guide Dogs Inc ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds FISHER HOUSE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Street Sense Inc ↗
- Who funds HOUSE OF RUTH ↗
- Who funds REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WARRIOR CANINE CONNECTION INC ↗
- Who funds Disabled American Veterans (DAV) Charitable Service Trust ↗
- Who funds SERVICE DOGS OF VIRGINIA INC ↗
- Who funds MSI US ↗
- Who funds ENGENDERHEALTH INC ↗
- Who funds PATHFINDER INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds SINGLE CAUSE SINGLE CURE ↗
- Who funds ROSS SCHOOL PTA ↗
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: Impactassetsinc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Wenwach 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Warrior Canine Connection Inc — 5% of income from government
- Neads Inc — 1% of income from government
- Southeastern Guide Dogs 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.