Skip to content
Women Donors Network at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Women Donors Network

WOMEN DONORS NETWORK advances a just, equitable, and sustainable world through the power of philanthropy, women's leadership, and collective and individual action.

$13M
Granted FY2024still arriving
142
Grants FY2024still arriving
28
States reached
$1.9M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Civil Rights$16MPhilanthropy$13MPublic Benefit$9.3MHealth$6.7MEnvironment$5.1MHuman Services$2.8MCommunity Improvement$2.1MEducation$2.1MOther$0
02FY2024 · 142 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k27 grants · $636k
  • $50k–250k113 grants · $10M
  • $250k+2 grants · $2.2M
$98,000
Median grant
28
States reached
$12M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMALGAMATED CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC$1,850,000
WDN ACTION$350,000
CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE$188,675
ABORTION FUND OF OHIO$150,000
PRO-CHOICE ARIZONA$150,000
WOMEN'S EMERGENCY NETWORK INC$150,000
INFACT DBA CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY$150,000
OUR JUSTICE$150,000
ARIA MEDICAL FOUNDATION$138,000
BEYOND TRENCHES INC$130,000
THE GOOD INFORMATION FOUNDATION$125,000
FRACTURED ATLAS INC$107,000
UNITED FOR A FAIR ECONOMY$100,000
ULTRAVIOLET EDUCATION FUND$100,000
THE AFIYA CENTER$100,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY17–24, $3.4M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 37% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%AYADA LEADS: $100k → 11%ALIANZA NACIONAL DE CAMPESINAS INC: $100k → 10%YWCA OF KAUA'I: $50k → 9%WOVEN COLLECTIVE INC: $100k → 9%MAKE THE ROAD STATES INC: $100k → 20%SEX WORKERS OUTREACH PROJECT BEHIND BARS: $60k → 13%FREEDOM INC: $100k → 10%OPERATION RESTORATION: $50k → 23%AYADA LEADS: $50k → 11%ALIANZA NACIONAL DE CAMPESINAS INC: $100k → 10%MAKE THE ROAD STATES INC: $100k → 20%EKVNV YEFOLECVLKE: $25k → 18%FREEDOM INC: $100k → 10%FAITH CHOICE OHIO: $100k → 15%Justice for Families: $30k → 17%ALIANZA NACIONAL DE CAMPESINAS INC: $100k → 10%MAKE THE ROAD STATES INC: $75k → 20%FREEDOM INC: $50k → 10%FREEDOM INC: $50k → 10%HEART WOMEN & GIRLS: $100k → 14%ABORTION LIBERATION FUND OF PA: $100k → 22%INSTITUTO LAB: $100k → 11%INSTITUTO LAB: $100k → 11%TIDES CENTER: $100k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $100k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $100k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $100k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $100k → 10%UNLOCKING FUTURES INC: $25k → 17%TIDES CENTER: $100k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $100k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $100k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $100k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $50k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $50k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $50k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $50k → 10%TIDES CENTER: $50k → 10%ABORTION COALITION FOR TELEMEDICINE ACCESS: $75k → 17%ARIA MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $138k → 10%THE BRIGID ALLIANCE: $50k → 17%POSSIBILITY LABS: $98k → 10%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

AK
WA
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
OH
PA
NJ
CT
CA
CO
MO
WV
VA
MD
AZ
NM
AR
TN
NC
SC
DC
HI
OK
LA
MS
AL
GA
TX
FL
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
04

Where the work is directed

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

About 25% of Women Donors Network’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Women Donors Networklessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

75%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$34M · 93 repeat orgs$11M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +73% since the first grant, against +1% for those funded once.

93 repeat relationships: 51 still active in FY2024, 42 since wound down; 59 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

93
90

Total granted

$34M
$6.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+73%
+1%

Still filing today

98%
90%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 52% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4.8M went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsHuman ServicesHealthInternationalEnvironmentEducationOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • WD
    WOMEN DONORS NETWORK ACTION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.5M · revenue ×15
  • ID
    Infact DBA Corporate Accountability
    6× · 2019–2024 · $1.4M · revenue +14%
  • Alliance for Global Justice Corp
    3× · 2018–2020 · $1.2M · revenue +41%

Funded once

  • WH
    WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER OF WEST VIRGINIA INC
    one grant, 2023 · $300k · revenue -33%
  • YF
    Yellowhammer Fund
    one grant, 2022 · $300k · revenue -54%
  • AC
    ABORTION CARE NETWORK
    one grant, 2022 · $250k · revenue -28%
How this is measured

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

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Forward Together

Forward Together is a national reproductive justice organization that centers people, families, and communities who experience reproductive oppression. They prioritize queer, trans, Black, Indigenous, and other peoples of color and utilize…

Health
2
Fund for Justice

Fund for Justice is a nationally connected social impact research and advocacy organization that works to achieve fundamental, systemic reform by addressing policies and practicies that prevent individuals from reaching their full…

Crime & Legal
3
Jobs with Justice San Francisco

A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…

Employment
4
International Network for the Reduction of Abortion Discrimination and Stigma

The International Network for the Reduction of Abortion Discrimination and Stigma (inroads) builds cross-movement collective power, provides flexible resources, and strengthens movements across the global abortion justice ecosystem to…

Civil Rights
5
Women's Link Worldwide

A legal organization working to advance the rights of women, girls, and gender diverse people. We work on issues of reproductive rights, gender-based violence, climate, and racial justice in East Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the…

Civil Rights
6
Pro-Choice Washington

To protect and promote every persons right to access the full range of reproductive healthcare choices in Washington State, including safe and legal abortion, through education, advocacy, lobbying and coalition-building

—
7
National Network of Abortion Funds Inc

The national network of abortion funds (nnaf) is determined to build a world where all reproductive options are valued, accessible, and stigma-free. we believe all people know how to best care for their own bodies and build their own…

Environment
8
Forward Together Action

FORWARD TOGETHER ACTION (FTA) is an national reproductive justice organization that ORGANIZES COMMUNITIES who experience reproductive oppression TO BUILD POWER. They prioritize queer, trans, Black, Indigenous, and other peoples of colorAnd…

Human Services
9
Justice Funders

Serve as a partner, educator, and guide for philanthropy in reimagining practices that advance a thriving and just world.

—
10
Women Winning

To encourage, promote, support, and elect pro-choice women of all political parties to all levels of public office in minnesota.

Public Benefit
11
Pro-Choice Washington Foundation

The Pro-Choice Washington Foundation is our 501c3 focused on issue research, leadership development, and community and decision-maker education.

Civil Rights
12
Women Donors Network

Women donors network advances a just, equitable, and sustainable world through the power of philanthropy, women's leadership, and collective and individual action.

Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Policylink; the most unlike its peers is Indigenous Women Rising Indigeous Women Rising. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

248 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 248 of the 256 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

17
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
70
Early backer (in before they grew)
242/248
Grantees still filing
141/248
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc: $9,579,500 · PhilanthropyAmalgamated Charitable F…TIDES FOUNDATION: $1,923,625 · PhilanthropyTIDES FOUNDATIONMICHIGAN ORGANIZING PROJECT: $560,100 · Philanthropy+7 more: $1,150,765 · Philanthropy+7 moreNational Domestic Workers Alliance Inc: $1,010,000 · Civil RightsNational Domestic W…ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH ORGANIZING: $825,000 · Civil RightsALLIANCE FOR YOUTH …IFWHENHOW: $825,000 · Civil RightsIFWHENHOWTEXAS FREEDOM NETWORK EDUCATION FUND: $562,500 · Civil RightsTEXAS FREEDOM NETWO…BVM CAPACITY BUILDING INSTITUTE INC: $430,300 · Civil RightsTransgender Law Center: $425,000 · Civil RightsUltraViolet Education Fund: $400,750 · Civil RightsMICHIGAN VOICES: $400,000 · Civil RightsPROGEORGIA STATE TABLE INC: $392,500 · Civil RightsVOTER FORMATION PROJECT: $375,000 · Civil RightsARIZONA COALITION FOR CHANGE: $375,000 · Civil Rights+28 more: $4,506,150 · Civil Rights+28 moreWOMEN DONORS NETWORK ACTION: $1,462,500 · OtherWOMEN DONORS NETWORK ACTIONVerified Voting Foundation: $1,045,000 · OtherVerified Voting FoundationEQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES: $900,000 · OtherSHARE EQUITY: $610,000 · OtherNEO Philanthropy Inc: $960,000 · OtherTEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND: $668,675 · Other+77 more: $12,554,975 · Other+77 moreNEW VENTURE FUND: $1,381,000 · EnvironmentNEW VENTURE …Infact DBA Corporate Accountability: $1,369,000 · EnvironmentInfact DBA C…SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $705,000 · EnvironmentSOCIAL AND E…HIGHLANDER RESEARCH & EDUCATION CENTER INC: $600,000 · EnvironmentHIGHLANDER R…CLIMATE JUSTICE ALLIANCE: $400,000 · EnvironmentCLIMATE JUST…SOGOREA TE LAND TRUST: $350,000 · EnvironmentWINDWARD FUND: $300,000 · EnvironmentSolutions Project Inc: $235,000 · Environment+11 more: $1,355,000 · Environment+11 moreTIDES CENTER: $1,450,000 · Human ServicesAlianza Nacional de Campesinas Inc: $460,000 · Human ServicesFREEDOM INC: $300,000 · Human ServicesMake The Road States Inc: $275,000 · Human ServicesAll-Options: $200,000 · Human ServicesDC ABORTION FUND: $200,000 · Human ServicesInstituto Lab: $200,000 · Human ServicesEcumenical Coalition for Women and Families: $175,000 · Human ServicesAYADA LEADS: $150,000 · Human Services+11 more: $1,021,000 · Human ServicesPROTEUS FUND INC: $1,039,100 · EducationBLUEPRINT NORTH CAROLINA: $605,000 · EducationUnited for Respect Education Fund: $520,000 · EducationSOCIAL GOOD FUND INC: $305,000 · EducationWILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC: $305,000 · EducationThe Trustees of Princeton University: $230,000 · EducationLOCAL PROGRESS POLICY INSTITUTE: $200,000 · EducationNORTH CAROLINA BLACK ALLIANCE INC: $200,000 · EducationINDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK: $187,000 · Education+7 more: $650,000 · EducationAlliance for Global Justice Corp: $1,200,000 · InternationalGlobal Impact: $716,000 · InternationalCenter for Third World Organizing: $475,000 · InternationalPeace Development Fund: $390,000 · InternationalCAMBRIDGE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CONSULTANTS: $230,000 · InternationalTHOUSAND CURRENTS: $200,000 · InternationalGRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INC: $195,000 · InternationalPANORAMA GLOBAL: $150,000 · International+5 more: $444,400 · International
Philanthropy$13,213,990Civil Rights$10,527,200Other$18,201,150Environment$6,695,000Human Services$4,431,000Education$4,241,100International$4,000,400

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAmalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc: $9,579,500 over 6y, 3.1% of budgetTIDES FOUNDATION: $1,923,625 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetWOMEN DONORS NETWORK ACTION: $1,462,500 over 8y, 12% of budgetTIDES CENTER: $1,450,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetNEW VENTURE FUND: $1,381,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetInfact DBA Corporate Accountability: $1,369,000 over 6y, 5.0% of budgetAlliance for Global Justice Corp: $1,200,000 over 3y, 11% of budgetVerified Voting Foundation: $1,045,000 over 6y, 23% of budgetPROTEUS FUND INC: $1,039,100 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetNational Domestic Workers Alliance Inc: $1,010,000 over 7y, 1.0% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Inc: $960,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetEQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES: $900,000 over 6y, 7.2% of budgetALLIANCE FOR YOUTH ORGANIZING: $825,000 over 6y, 2.2% of budgetIFWHENHOW: $825,000 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetGlobal Impact: $716,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $705,000 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetTEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND: $668,675 over 6y, 3.7% of budgetSHARE EQUITY: $610,000 over 2y, 9.0% of budgetBLUEPRINT NORTH CAROLINA: $605,000 over 5y, 3.4% of budgetHIGHLANDER RESEARCH & EDUCATION CENTER INC: $600,000 over 5y, 0.6% of budgetTEXAS FREEDOM NETWORK EDUCATION FUND: $562,500 over 4y, 4.4% of budgetMICHIGAN ORGANIZING PROJECT: $560,100 over 4y, 12% of budgetNational Women's Health Network: $540,000 over 5y, 3.7% of budgetTAKEACTION MN EDUCATION FUND: $525,000 over 4y, 4.2% of budgetCHINESE PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION: $525,000 over 4y, 1.8% of budgetUnited for Respect Education Fund: $520,000 over 5y, 1.6% of budgetCenter for Third World Organizing: $475,000 over 4y, 1.8% of budgetAlianza Nacional de Campesinas Inc: $460,000 over 5y, 11% of budgetBVM CAPACITY BUILDING INSTITUTE INC: $430,300 over 4y, 6.9% of budgetTransgender Law Center: $425,000 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetNEW ECONOMY COALITION INC: $420,000 over 5y, 5.0% of budgetUltraViolet Education Fund: $400,750 over 4y, 5.3% of budgetRESIST INC: $400,000 over 4y, 1.4% of budgetCLIMATE JUSTICE ALLIANCE: $400,000 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetMICHIGAN VOICES: $400,000 over 4y, 3.2% of budgetPROGEORGIA STATE TABLE INC: $392,500 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetPeace Development Fund: $390,000 over 4y, 5.1% of budgetPROJECT SOUTH INC: $387,000 over 3y, 3.4% of budgetVOTER FORMATION PROJECT: $375,000 over 4y, 88% of budgetARIZONA COALITION FOR CHANGE: $375,000 over 4y, 7.7% of budgetNEW GEORGIA PROJECT INC: $350,000 over 3y, 6.1% of budgetSOGOREA TE LAND TRUST: $350,000 over 4y, 1.4% of budgetFeminist Womens Health Center Inc: $350,000 over 2y, 7.1% of budgetPOWER SHIFT NETWORK: $325,000 over 3y, 10% of budgetGroundswell Fund: $305,765 over 4y, 0.7% of budgetSOCIAL GOOD FUND INC: $305,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetWILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC: $305,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetWINDWARD FUND: $300,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds WOMEN DONORS NETWORK ACTION ↗
  • Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
  • Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
  • Who funds Infact DBA Corporate Accountability ↗
  • Who funds Alliance for Global Justice Corp ↗
  • Who funds Verified Voting Foundation ↗
  • Who funds PROTEUS FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds National Domestic Workers Alliance Inc ↗
  • Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
  • Who funds EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES ↗
  • Who funds ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH ORGANIZING ↗
  • Who funds IFWHENHOW ↗
  • Who funds Global Impact ↗
  • Who funds SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds SHARE EQUITY ↗
  • Who funds BLUEPRINT NORTH CAROLINA ↗
  • Who funds HIGHLANDER RESEARCH & EDUCATION CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS FREEDOM NETWORK EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds MICHIGAN ORGANIZING PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds National Women's Health Network ↗
  • Who funds TAKEACTION MN EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds CHINESE PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds United for Respect Education Fund ↗
  • Who funds Center for Third World Organizing ↗
  • Who funds Alianza Nacional de Campesinas Inc ↗
  • Who funds BVM CAPACITY BUILDING INSTITUTE INC ↗
  • Who funds Transgender Law Center ↗
  • Who funds NEW ECONOMY COALITION INC ↗
  • Who funds UltraViolet Education Fund ↗
  • Who funds RESIST INC ↗
  • Who funds CLIMATE JUSTICE ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds MICHIGAN VOICES ↗
  • Who funds PROGEORGIA STATE TABLE INC ↗
  • Who funds Peace Development Fund ↗
  • Who funds PROJECT SOUTH INC ↗
  • Who funds VOTER FORMATION PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds ARIZONA COALITION FOR CHANGE ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Amalgamated Charitabl…Hopewell FundNEO Philanthropy IncProteus Fund IncNational Network of A…New Venture FundGroundswell FundWindward FundMs Foundation for Wom…Tides FoundationThe Susan Thompson Bu…Impactassetsinc
Amalgamated Charitable Foundation IncDC115× affinity107 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Hopewell Fund · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Proteus Fund Inc · National Network of Abortion Funds Inc · New Venture Fund · Groundswell Fund · Windward Fund · Ms Foundation for Women Inc · Tides Foundation · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · Impactassetsinc

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Women Donors Network funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Women Donors Network. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 170%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • The Trustees of Princeton University: 11% of income from government
  • Casa Inc: 8% of income from government
  • President and Fellows of Harvard College: 7% of income from government
  • Resist Inc: 2% of income from government
  • Infact Dba Corporate Accountability: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
17get no government money at all
31report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 256 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its 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.

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

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Women Donors Network’s filings →

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 endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home