Loading…
· Private foundation
XAVIER-NICHOLS FOUNDATION
This foundation does not accept unsolicited requests — it funds preselected organizations.
$132k
Granted FY2023
3
Grants
1
Communities
$60k
Largest
01What you fund
01
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 43% of XAVIER-NICHOLS FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.
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
2018
—
2019
—
2020
lakereligious
2021
rowinghealth
2022
religious
2023
—
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2023 · 3 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2023
- $10k–50k1 grant · $22k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $110k
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$5k
Total assets
Largest grants
- ZELIE'S HOME$60,000
- SPARTAN ALUMNI ROWING ASSOC$50,000
- THE JOE BAAB CULINARY FIGHTS CANCER$22,000
02The need
04
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:
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 16% — the area typically sits at 15%. 94% of your dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
86%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$458k · 6 repeat orgs$73k to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +215% since the first grant, against +34% for the ones you funded once.
6 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2023, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
6
12
Total granted
$458k
$51k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+215%
+34%
Still filing today
67%
33%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2023, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $22k went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
EducationHousing & ShelterRecreation & SportsArts & CultureHuman ServicesInternationalOther
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
- ZHZELIE'S HOME4× · 2020–2023 · $213k · revenue +215%
- CRCLEVELAND ROWING FOUNDATION2× · 2020–2021 · $120k · revenue +20%
- SASPARTAN ALUMNI ROWING ASSOC3× · 2021–2023 · $80k · revenue +345% · 39% of their budget
Funded once
- OLORCHARD LAKE SCHOOLSone grant, 2020 · $10k
- SPST PASCHAL BAYLONone grant, 2020 · $10k
- SJST JOSEPH ACADEMYone grant, 2022 · $10k
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.
1
Old and Ancient Rowers Society of
Promotes and supports the university of rhode island crew club through fundraising efforts aimed at improving and maintaning the boathouse and promotes the sport of rowing in the local community through provision of rowing classes.
Education
2
Sooner Rowing Association
—
3
The College of Wooster
The college of wooster is a community of independent minds, working together to prepare students to become leaders of character and influence in an interdependent global community.
Education
4
Cleveland State University
The CSUF is organized primarily to engage in activities to provide support and services to CSU.
Education
5
Hudson River Rowing Association
Provide education and training to individuals in the art of rowing without preference to race, creed, age, religion, color or disability. to provide the equitable means for both competitive and recreational rowing.
Recreation & Sports
6
Cleveland Institute of Music
To empower the world's most talented classical music students to fulfill their dreams&potential.
Education
7
Hiram College
The mission of hiram college is to foster intellectual excellence and social responsibility enabling our students to thrive in their chosen careers, flourish in life and face the urgent challenges of our times.
Education
8
American College of Osteopathic
To maintain an organizational framework committed to the health of women by promoting the practice of obstetrics and gynecology through education and awareness.
—
9
Rogue Rowing
We are a community based organization that inspires and supports a passion for the sport of rowing. we develop competitive and recreational rowers at all levels, embracing fun, teamwork, trust and mutual respect by creatively engaging the…
Recreation & Sports
10
Chicago Rowing Foundation
Promote sweep rowing and sculling in the greater Chicago Metropolitan area.
—
11
Oberlin College
Core values derived from our mission include: - Educational Excellence: The College of Arts and Sciences and Conservatory of Music are committed to educating students to achieve academic and musical excellence in an environment where…
Education
12
Rio Salado Rowing Club Inc
We empower adult rowers to discover the joys of rowing and advance their skills in a welcoming team environment.
Recreation & Sports
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cleveland Rowing Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Lake Erie College of Osteopathic. 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
8 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2024.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$230,800Housing & Shelter$212,514Recreation & Sports$80,000Education$2,610Arts & Culture$2,500Human Services$2,500International$500
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: 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 XAVIER-NICHOLS FOUNDATION 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 · 0–10%
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: SPARTAN ALUMNI ROWING ASSOC.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
high risk
~2 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 4.5× since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 030531306 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 SPARTAN ALUMNI ROWING ASSOC, 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
- FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 2 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 39% 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 Xavier-Nichols Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Xavier-Nichols Foundation 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.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines