Skip to content
Ww Good Foundation Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Ww Good Foundation Inc

Ww good foundation, inc.

$796k
Granted FY2022
18
Grants FY2022
11
States reached
$525k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2022.

Food & Nutrition$5.2MPhilanthropy$220kInternational$86kRecreation & Sports$85kHealth$71kCivil Rights$62kEducation$22kHuman Services$13k
02FY2022 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • Under $10k2 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k14 grants · $252k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $86k
  • $250k+1 grant · $525k
$17,116
Median grant
11
States reached
$244k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Feeding America$524,680
WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INCORPORATED$86,344
CH8SING WATERFALLS$44,872
MIWRC$34,996
Hike Clerb Inc$24,000
SISTA AFYA COMMUNITY CARE NFP$20,000
CITY HARVEST$19,174
BORDERLAND RAINBOW CENTER$18,540
Headstrong$17,116
SAPNA NYC INC$12,700
FOOD RECOVERY NETWORK$10,814
THE NOTAH BEGAY III FOUNDATION$10,000
FOODWHAT INCORPORATED$10,000
ACTIVE PLUS$10,000
GROW ORLANDO INC$10,000
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 (FY21–22, $33k) land where the poverty rate runs at 28%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%Full Hearts Full Bellies: $20k → 28%SAPNA NYC INC: $13k → 28%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

MN
IL
NY
PA
CT
CA
VA
MD
NM
DC
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.1M · 4 repeat orgs$552k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +40% since the first grant, against -4% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2022, 1 since wound down; 14 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
7

Total granted

$5.1M
$242k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+40%
-4%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 64% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $310k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22
Food & NutritionRecreation & SportsHealthHuman ServicesCivil RightsEnvironmentOther
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

  • Feeding America
    3× · 2020–2022 · $2.2M · revenue +40%
  • HS
    HEAD STRONG PROJECT INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $51k · revenue +26%
  • BR
    BORDERLAND RAINBOW CENTER
    2× · 2021–2022 · $27k · revenue +51%

Funded once

  • TN
    THE NEW YORK TIMES COMMUNITIES FUND
    one grant, 2020 · $150k · revenue +12%
  • FB
    FULL BELLIES INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $20k · revenue +120% · 26% of their budget
  • HISPANICS IN PHILANTHROPY
    one grant, 2020 · $20k · revenue -79%
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
Fair Food Network Inc

Fair food network is organized to grow community health, wealth, and resilience through food, to increase access to affordable healthy food, help local food economies thrive and build resilience in local food and agriculture systems.

Food & Nutrition
2
Food Forward Inc

Food forward fights hunger and prevents food waste by rescuing fresh surplus produce, connecting this abundance with people experiencing food insecurity, and inspiring others to do the same.

Food & Nutrition
3
Berkeley Food Network

The berkeley food network (bfn) works to expand food assistance services to food-insecure berkeley residents. bfn was founded in 2016 to help establish a foundation of good health from which all berkeley residents can pursue opportunity by…

Food & Nutrition
4
Nashville Food Project Inc

The nashville food project brings people together to grow, cook, and share nourishing food, with the goals of cultivating community and alleviating hunger in our city.

Food & Nutrition
5
The Global FoodBanking Network

To nourish the world's hungry through uniting and advancing food banks.

International
6
Food and Planet

The mission of Food & Planet is to empower nutrition professionals to advance sustainable food systems through our programs and resources. Over the past year, we have engaged with partners to develop several key resources and learning…

Food & Nutrition
7
Foodwise Community

Foodwise grows thriving communities through the power and joy of local food. We envision a world that nourishes all people, local economies, and the living earth.

—
8
Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition

The mission of the global alliance for improved nutrition (gain) is to improve the consumption of healthier diets for all, especially the most vulnerable, by improving the availability, affordability, desirability, and sustainability of…

Food & Nutrition
9
Second Harvest of Silicon Valley

To realize our vision of a hunger free community we will provide more food, healthy food and better access to food. we will leverage our own resources and also work with partners in the community.

Food & Nutrition
10
Food Bank for New York City

Food bank for nyc has been the city's major hunger-relief organization driven by our mission to empower every new yorker to achieve food security for good. we harness the collective power of our network of food providers, partners, and…

Community Improvement
11
Foodbank of Santa Barbara County Inc

To end hunger and transform the health of our community by providing nourishment to those in need by acquiring and distributing safe nutritious food via local agencies and by providing education to solve hunger and nutritional problems in…

Food & Nutrition
12
The Food Bank for Larimer County

To provide food to all in need through community partnerships and hunger relief programs. Our vision is a hunger-free Larimer County.

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is La Semilla Food Center; the most unlike its peers is Borderland Rainbow Center. 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

26 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. 26 of the 27 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
26/26
Grantees still filing
12/26
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WHOLESOME WAVE INC: $2,811,555 · EnvironmentWHOLESOME WAVE INCFeeding America: $2,224,752 · Food & NutritionFeeding America+7 more: $86,913 · Food & NutritionTHE NEW YORK TIMES COMMUNITIES FUND: $150,000 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY WORLDWIDE: $50,000 · Philanthropy+1 more: $5,912 · PhilanthropyWORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $86,344 · InternationalCH8SING WATERFALLS - EMBR8CE THE CH8SE: $44,872 · Recreation & SportsHIKE CLERB INC: $24,000 · Recreation & SportsTHE NOTAH BEGAY III FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · Recreation & SportsHEAD STRONG PROJECT INC: $50,658 · HealthSISTA AFYA COMMUNITY CARE NFP: $20,000 · HealthMINNESOTA INDIAN WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTER: $34,996 · OtherHISPANICS IN PHILANTHROPY: $20,000 · OtherGROW ORLANDO INC: $10,000 · OtherBORDERLAND RAINBOW CENTER: $26,950 · OtherGLSEN INC: $15,000 · OtherFULL BELLIES INC: $20,002 · OtherSAPNA NYC INC: $12,700 · OtherFoodWhat Incorporated: $10,000 · OtherBackyard Basecamp Inc: $6,690 · Other
Environment$2,811,555Food & Nutrition$2,311,665Philanthropy$205,912International$86,344Recreation & Sports$78,872Health$70,658Other$156,338

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 budgetWHOLESOME WAVE INC: $2,811,555 over 3y, 35% of budgetFeeding America: $2,224,752 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE NEW YORK TIMES COMMUNITIES FUND: $150,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetWORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $86,344 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHEAD STRONG PROJECT INC: $50,658 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetUNITED WAY WORLDWIDE: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMINNESOTA INDIAN WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTER: $34,996 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetBORDERLAND RAINBOW CENTER: $26,950 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetFULL BELLIES INC: $20,002 over 1y, 26% of budgetSISTA AFYA COMMUNITY CARE NFP: $20,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetHISPANICS IN PHILANTHROPY: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMINNIES FOOD PANTRY INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCITY HARVEST INC: $19,174 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGLSEN INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSAPNA NYC INC: $12,700 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetFOOD RECOVERY NETWORK INC: $10,814 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetLA SEMILLA FOOD CENTER: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetFoodWhat Incorporated: $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetACTIVE PLUS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 7.4% of budgetTHE NOTAH BEGAY III FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSECOND HARVEST FOODBANK OF NORTH CENTRAL OHIO: $9,317 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEATWELL EXCHANGE INC: $7,608 over 1y, 16% of budgetBackyard Basecamp Inc: $6,690 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetPLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND INC: $5,912 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.

Network for GoodAmerican Online Givin…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Network for GoodDC7.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Ww Good Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ww Good Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get no government money at all
    8report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Ww Good Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Ww Good Foundation Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 27 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2022, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Ww Good’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