Skip to content
Working Theory Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Working Theory 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.

$463k
Granted FY2025still arriving
17
Grants FY2025still arriving
9
States reached
$200k
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, FY2022 to 2025.

Health$573kFood & Nutrition$100kEducation$79kCrime & Legal$75kHuman Services$65kHousing & Shelter$50kRecreation & Sports$15kEmployment$15kOther$0
02FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k9 grants · $48k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $65k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $350k
$7,500
Median grant
9
States reached
$3.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BREAKTHROUGH T1D$200,000
TOWN OF LANCASTER$50,000
STARTING POINT SERVICES FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC AN$50,000
COLORECTAL CANCER ALLIANCE INC$50,000
CONNIE RICE INSTITUTE FOR URBAN PEACE$25,000
HONOR FOUNDATION$15,000
THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY$15,000
COMMONWEAL$10,000
CAMC FOUNDATION INC$7,500
CHILDRENS HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES$7,500
CAPITAL HOSPICE$5,000
THE FOUNDATION FOR POST-ACUTE AND LONG-TERM CARE M$5,000
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF HOSPICE & PALLIATIVE MEDICINE$5,000
IONA SENIOR SERVICES$5,000
INTEGRAL YOGA INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNA INC$5,000
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 (FY25–25, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 50% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%COMMONWEAL: $10k → 8%CAPITAL HOSPICE: $5k → 13%IONA SENIOR SERVICES: $5k → 14%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

NH
IL
NY
OR
PA
CA
WV
VA
MD
NC
DC
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

37%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$370k · 6 repeat orgs$632k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +35% since the first grant, against +32% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 14 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
8

Total granted

$370k
$217k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+35%
+32%

Still filing today

67%
88%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 10% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $415k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
HealthEducationHuman ServicesCrime & LegalPhilanthropyEnvironmentOther
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

  • TC
    THE CONNIE RICE INSTITUTE FOR URBAN PEACE
    2× · 2022–2025 · $75k · revenue +194%
  • CA
    CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL CENTER INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $18k · revenue +35%
  • CH
    Children's Hospital Los Angeles
    2× · 2022–2025 · $18k · revenue +23%

Funded once

  • WT
    Working Theory Farmgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $100k · revenue +66%
  • TU
    Temple University Hospital Incgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +32%
  • TG
    The George Washington University
    one grant, 2023 · $25k · revenue +13%
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
Baylor Research Institute

To improve the care and well being of our community, nationally and internationally, through innovative clinically relevant research that is consistent with the mission, vision and values of Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH).

Health
2
Mass General Brigham Incorporated & Affiliates Group Return

Mass general brigham incorporated is developing an integrated health care delivery system throughout the region that offers patients a continuum of coordinated, high-quality care.

Health
3
Lehigh Valley Hospital

Our mission is to heal, comfort and care for the people of our community by providing advanced and compassionate health care of superior quality and value, supported by education and research.

Health
4
Upmc

Support of subsidiary tax-exempt healthcare, education and research organizations (see schedule o)

Health
5
The Johns Hopkins Hospital

For more than 125 years, the mission of the johns hopkins hospital has been to lead the world in the diagnosis and treatment of disease and to train tomorrow's great physicians, nurses and scientists. above all, we aim to provide the…

Health
6
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

Fred hutch cancer center ("fred hutch") unites innovative research and compassionate care to prevent and eliminate cancer and infectious disease. continued on schedule o

Health
7
Philadelphia University

The organization is an affiliate within thomas jefferson university/jefferson health; a comprehensive professional university and tax-exempt integrated healthcare delivery system ("system"), with a tripartite mission of education, research…

Education
8
Adventist Healthcare Inc

We extend god's care through the ministry of physical, mental and spiritual healing.

—
9
OhioHealth Corporation Group Return

To improve the health of those we serve.

Health
10
Rush University Medical Center

The mission of Rush is to improve the health of the individuals and diverse communities we serve through the integration of outstanding patient care, education, research and community partnerships.

Health
11
Pasadena Hospital Association Ltd

Huntington Health stands for community. We stand for compassion. But more than anything, Huntington stands for health. Providing world-class health care is our specialty, and it's what we've been doing for the San Gabriel Valley since…

Health
12
Sutter Bay Hospitals

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Charleston Area Medical Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Wine to Water. 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

22 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. 22 of the 28 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/22
Grantees still filing
11/22
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BREAKTHROUGH T1D: $200,000 · HealthBREAKTHROUGH T1DCOLORECTAL CANCER ALLIANCE: $50,000 · HealthCOLORECTAL CANCER ALLIANCETemple University Hospital Inc: $50,000 · HealthTemple University Hospital IncCHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL CENTER INC: $17,500 · HealthChildren's Hospital Los Angeles: $17,500 · Health+3 more: $22,500 · Health+3 moreJUVENILE DIABETES RESEARCH FOUNDATION INTERNATIONA: $200,000 · OtherJUVENILE DIABETES RESEARCH FOUNDATION I…STARTING POINT SERVICES FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC AN: $50,000 · OtherSTARTING POINT SERVICES FOR VICTIMS OF …TOWN OF LANCASTER: $50,000 · OtherTOWN OF LANCASTERJOHN MCCARTIN FUND: $15,000 · Other+6 more: $35,000 · Other+6 moreWorking Theory Farm: $100,000 · Youth DevelopmentWorking The…THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY: $45,000 · EducationTHOMAS JE…The George Washington University: $25,000 · EducationThe Georg…INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN JUDGES: $9,000 · EducationINTERNATI…THE FOUNDATION FOR POST-ACUTE AND LONG TERM CARE MEDICINE: $5,000 · EducationTHE FOUND…THE CONNIE RICE INSTITUTE FOR URBAN PEACE: $75,000 · Crime & LegalCOMMONWEAL: $10,000 · Human ServicesIona Senior Services: $5,000 · Human ServicesCapital Hospice: $5,000 · Human ServicesTHE HONOR FOUNDATION INC: $15,000 · Employment
Health$357,500Other$350,000Youth Development$100,000Education$84,000Crime & Legal$75,000Human Services$20,000Employment$15,000

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 budgetBREAKTHROUGH T1D: $200,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWorking Theory Farm: $100,000 over 1y, 20% of budgetTHE CONNIE RICE INSTITUTE FOR URBAN PEACE: $75,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetCOLORECTAL CANCER ALLIANCE: $50,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTemple University Hospital Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY: $45,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetThe George Washington University: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL CENTER INC: $17,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetChildren's Hospital Los Angeles: $17,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE HONOR FOUNDATION INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMONWEAL: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAccessible Yoga Association: $10,000 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetFriends of Bassett Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN JUDGES: $9,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetWine to Water: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetIona Senior Services: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetEATON VILLAGE PRESERVATION SOCIETY: $2,500 over 1y, 5.4% 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.

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.

National Philanthropi…American Endowment Fo…Vanguard Charitable E…Morgan Stanley Global…Donor Advised Charita…The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA11.2× affinity10 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Working Theory Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Working Theory Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 19%
  • Working Theory Farm: 19% of income from government
  • Capital Hospice: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
3report 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 28 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Working Theory’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