Skip to content
Womens Funding Alliance at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Womens Funding Alliance

Women's Funding Alliance advances leadership and economic opportunity for women and girls in Washington State.

$93k
Granted FY2019
1
Grants FY2019
1
States reached
$45k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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 2019.

Community Improvement$408kPublic Benefit$80kYouth Development$77kEducation$67kHuman Services$23kArts & Culture$7kEnvironment$7kInternational$7kOther$0
02FY2019 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $45,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $93,492 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $48,492 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$45,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WSU - Spokane$45,000
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 (FY17–18, $36k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%YWCA of Clark County: $15k → 9%La Casa Hogar: $15k → 17%Powerful Voices: $7k → 9%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.
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.
03Its 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
Girls Incorporated of Washington County

The mission of girls inc. of washington county is to inspire all girls to grow up strong, smart and bold.

Youth Development
2
Girls Incorporated of the Central Coast

To inspire all girls to be strong, smart, and bold and to respect themselves and the world around them.Girls Incorporated of the Central Coast offers a constellation of programs that deliver innovative, multi-faceted activities designed to…

Youth Development
3
Girl Scouts of Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho

To build girls of courage, confidence and character, who make the world a better place.

Youth Development
4
Girls On the Run - Dc

Girls on the Run-DC is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization with the mission of inspiring girls to be joyful, healthy, and confident using a fun, experience-based curriculum that creatively integrates running.

Youth Development
5
Girls on the Run of the Grand Valley

An inclusive and empowering enrichment program for young girls to learn whole-body health & foundational life skills through curriculum, utilizing Positive Youth Development and Social Emotional Learning strategies, while incorporating…

Recreation & Sports
6
Girls on the Run of Los Angeles County

Our organization inspires and empowers girls in grades 3-8 through a program that combines physical activity with social-emotional learning. Participants build confidence, develop life skills, and foster healthy habits while training for…

Youth Development
7
Girls Incorporated of San Antonio

Girls Inc. inspires all girls to be strong, smart, and bold. Our comprehensive approach to whole girl development equips girls to navigate gender, economic, and social barriers and grow up healthy, educated, and independent.

Human Services
8
King County Play Equity Coalition

King County Play Equity Coalition is a network of organizations dedicated to challenging and changing systems to shift power and center physical activity as a key part of health and youth development.

Youth Development
9
Girls On the Run - Chicago Inc

The organization is a nonprofit after school program that uses the power of running to teach girls, 3rd-8th grade, critical social emotional learning skills.

Recreation & Sports
10
Girls On the Run Southeast Washington

Educate girls for lifetime of self-respect and healthy living

Youth Development
11
Girls on the Run of Nova

Girls on the Run of Northern Virginia (GOTR NOVA) is a non-profit 501(c)3 Organization with a mission of inspiring girls to be joyful, healthy and confident using a fun, experience-based curriculum which creatively integrates running.

Youth Development
12
Washington Ethnic Studies Now

Washington Ethnic Studies Now WAESN is a multigenerational majority POC-led nonprofit advancing Ethnic Studies and racial justice in Washington. We center people of color build youth-centered leadership and learning and organize…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Girls On the Run of Snohomish County; the most unlike its peers is Na'ah Illahee Fund. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

20 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. 20 of the 23 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
11
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/20
Grantees still filing
17/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE FUND: $394,673 · Community ImprovementCENTER FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDWASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY: $95,628 · OtherWASHINGTON STATE UNIVERS…RUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY: $17,000 · OtherRUTGERS THE STATE UNIVER…YWCA of Olympia: $8,700 · OtherYWCA of OlympiaReel Grrls: $6,700 · OtherRAIN CITY ROCK CAMP FOR GIRLS: $6,700 · OtherNa'ah Illahee Fund: $6,700 · OtherGirls on the Run Puget Sound: $6,700 · OtherLA CASA HOGAR: $15,000 · Human ServicesYWCA CLARK COUNTY: $14,500 · Human ServicesPowerful Voices: $6,700 · Human ServicesMARY'S PLACE SEATTLE: $6,000 · Human ServicesYou Grow Girl: $6,700 · Youth DevelopmentGIRLS ON THE RUN OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY: $6,700 · Youth DevelopmentYOUNG WOMEN EMPOWERED: $6,700 · Youth DevelopmentGIRLS ON THE RUN OF WESTSOUND: $6,700 · Youth DevelopmentGIRLS ON THE RUN OF SPOKANE COUNTY: $6,700 · Youth DevelopmentTHE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA: $6,700 · Youth DevelopmentCASA LATINA: $10,000 · EducationWILD WHATCOM: $6,700 · EducationTechbridge Girls: $6,700 · EducationWashington Progress Fund: $20,000 · PhilanthropyPUGET SOUND SAGE: $13,000 · Social Science
Community Improvement$394,673Other$148,128Human Services$42,200Youth Development$40,200Education$23,400Philanthropy$20,000Social Science$13,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCENTER FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE FUND: $394,673 over 2y, 93% of budgetWashington Progress Fund: $20,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetLA CASA HOGAR: $15,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetYWCA CLARK COUNTY: $14,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetPUGET SOUND SAGE: $13,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetCASA LATINA: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetYWCA of Olympia: $8,700 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetPowerful Voices: $6,700 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetWILD WHATCOM: $6,700 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetRAIN CITY ROCK CAMP FOR GIRLS: $6,700 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetTechbridge Girls: $6,700 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGIRLS ON THE RUN OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY: $6,700 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetGirls on the Run Puget Sound: $6,700 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetGIRLS ON THE RUN OF SPOKANE COUNTY: $6,700 over 1y, 17% of budgetTHE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA: $6,700 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetMARY'S PLACE SEATTLE: $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

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.

Seattle FoundationSchool's Out Washingt…The Norcliffe Foundat…Puget Sound Energy Fo…The Satterberg Founda…Philanthropy NorthwestInatai FoundationUnited Way of King Co…ArtsfundImpactassetsincGates FoundationWashington Women's Fo…
Seattle FoundationWA26.8× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Seattle Foundation · School's Out Washington · The Norcliffe Foundation · Puget Sound Energy Foundation · The Satterberg Foundation Inc · Philanthropy Northwest · Inatai Foundation · United Way of King County · Artsfund · Impactassetsinc · Gates Foundation · Washington Women's Foundation

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 Womens Funding Alliance funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Womens Funding Alliance. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 23 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2021) is on record and reports $271k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2019, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Womens Funding Alliance’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