· Public charity
Western Assoc of State Hwy & Transportation Officials
The purpose of washto is to serve its member departments by: contributing to national policies on transportation issues that are responsive to members' needs; promoting a closer relationship between its members; advocating legislation that supports efficient and effective transportation systems, economic competitiveness and the…
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2021.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 2 grants below total $21,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $36,934 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $15,934 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION | $10,500 |
| NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION | $10,500 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–21) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 82% of your 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.
6 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2021, 4 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2021, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
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
- SDSOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY4× · 2018–2021 · $47k
- SOSTATE OF UTAH GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT3× · 2018–2020 · $23k
- UOUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA2× · 2018–2019 · $21k
Funded once
- DODEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICESone grant, 2019 · $5k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
0 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2018–2021.
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 2018–2021, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 0 of the 7 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.
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: Association of Public Health · Council of State and Territorial · National Fish and Wildlife 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.