How much did WORKERS DEFENSE PROJECT grant in FY2024?

Civil Rights$1.3MEducation$524kCommunity Improvement$164kCrime & Legal$143kHuman Services$40kPublic Safety & Disaster$10kYouth Development$10kHealth$10kOther$104k

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2019

organizingpass-thrueducationgrassroots leadership

2020

organizingpass-thrueducationgrassroots leadership

2021

austinyouthpass-thruorganizingeducationleadersaction

2022

bastapreparation awardfall fuerzafuerza regrant

2023

fall fuerzafuerza regrant

2024

—

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

$50k–250k1 grant · $127k
$250k+2 grants · $744k

$250,000

Median grant

States reached

$10M

Total assets

Largest grants

CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY PRIORITIES DBA EVERYTEXAN$494,064
WORKERS DEFENSE ACTION FUND$250,000
TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID INC$126,810

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY22–22, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10% — the area typically sits at 14%. 0% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

72%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$1.6M · 5 repeat orgs$644k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$1.6M

$150k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+12%

+138%

Still filing today

100%

80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 43% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $494k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Civil RightsEducationHuman ServicesPublic Safety & DisasterYouth DevelopmentCommunity ImprovementOther

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

WD
WORKERS DEFENSE ACTION FUND
4× · 2021–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +72% · 37% of their budget
TR
TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID INC
2× · 2022–2024 · $143k · revenue +35%
GL
GRASSROOTS LEADERSHIP
3× · 2019–2021 · $84k · revenue +12%

Funded once

UF
UNITED FOR RESPECT EDUCATION FUND
one grant, 2021 · $30k · revenue -8%
SC
SHAPE COMMUNITY CENTERgraduated
one grant, 2021 · $20k · revenue +202%
AJ
AUSTIN JUSTICE COALITION
one grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue -86%

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

04Your field

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.

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

Equal Justice Center

The Equal Justice Center is a non-profit law firm and employment justice organization which empowers low-income families, workers, and communities to achieve fair treatment in the workplace, in the justice system, and in our shared society…

Civil Rights

Fuerza LaboralPower of Workers

Fuerza Laboral is a workers' rights center whose mission is to shift the balance of power in our economy in favor of workers by educating, training, and organizing workers to become community leaders; taking direct action to recover unpaid…

Education

Texas Defender Service

Texas Defender Service (TDS) leads the fight to end excessive punishment in Texas.

Civil Rights

Workers Center for Racial Just

The mission of the Workers Center For Racial Justice is to eliminate structural barriers to sustainable and living wage

Civil Rights

Jolt Action Inc

We believe young Latinos will transform Texas through the power of their vote. We are harnessing the brilliance of our community and culture to build a generation of leaders that matches the urgency of our time.

Human Services

Raise Texas

RAISE Texas advances equitable policies and programs that foster financial security and economic mobility for low- and moderate-income Texans. We equip, innovate and advocate to reduce disparities, remove barriers and build opportunities…

Human Services

Latino Union of Chicago

Latino Union works to defend the rights and dignity of contingent workers, including the right to immigrate, work, live free of oppression and violence, and provide for oneself and one's family.

Human Services

American Civil Liberties Union

To champion individual rights under a charter granted by the ACLU (National Affiliate).

—

Workers Defense Project

Workers defense project is a membership based organization that empowers low-income workers to achieve fair employment through education, direct services, organizing, and strategic partnerships.

Education

Interfaith Worker Justice

To improve wages, benefits, and working conditions for low wage earners in the United States.

Religion

Texas Immigration Law Council

It is the mission of the Texas Immigration Law Council to protect and promote the basic rights of immigrants and refugees of all nationalities within Texas.

Civil Rights

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Domestic Workers Alliance Inc and the most unlike its peers is Living Hope Wheelchair Association. 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

14 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

14/14

Grantees still filing

9/14

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Civil Rights$1,266,583Education$524,064Community Improvement$164,084Crime & Legal$143,316Other$124,084Human Services$40,000Public Safety & Disaster$10,000

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.

Tides FoundationCA17.4× affinity7 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Tides Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Texas Organizing Project Education Fund · Unitarian Universalist Service · United Way of Greater Houston · Houston Endowment Inc · Borealis Philanthropy · Network for Good · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 organisation WORKERS DEFENSE PROJECT 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: WORKERS DEFENSE ACTION FUND.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~10 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 8 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

8 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up +72% since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 464242654 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on WORKERS DEFENSE ACTION FUND, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 10 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 37% of their budget — diversified.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to Workers Defense Project?

Find your warmest path to Workers Defense Project through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

WORKERS DEFENSE PROJECT

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

14 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Workers Defense Project?

More from the funding graph

WORKERS DEFENSE PROJECT

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

14 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Workers Defense Project?

More from the funding graph