Follow the record, then check the relationship.

A useful funding answer starts with organizations doing the work. It then asks who supported them, what the support covered, and whether the relationship says anything about a new opportunity. We keep those questions separate.

How we build an answer

1. Find the work. Search public nonprofit records, program descriptions, organization documents and research papers for candidate organizations. The graph helps us navigate across names, programs, topics and records; a matching keyword alone is only a lead.
2. Resolve identity and scope. Check the legal organization and its programs. A hospital or university with a named veteran program remains a broad organization; the program is the veteran-specific unit.
3. Trace support. Link to individual filings or project records where available and distinguish a recorded grant, investment, contract or partnership from a possible connection. A grant purpose may mention several activities, so its entire amount cannot automatically be assigned to one topic.
4. Check the next step. Use current primary sources to test geography, program fit and application rules. A historical supporter is not automatically an open prospect or a warm introduction.

What the records cannot establish

Public grant filings are incomplete and arrive with a delay. Recipient mailing addresses do not establish where services were delivered. A shared funder does not prove two recipients collaborate. An evaluation of one program does not guarantee the same result elsewhere. When we cannot validate a connection, we label it a research lead or an open question.

Accuracy and review

Our analysis is a best-effort reading of public records. We use automated extraction, matching and analysis across more records than we can check one by one. Results may contain errors, omissions or incorrect interpretations, even when a source is linked. Check the original record and current information before using a finding to make a funding or partnership decision. If you spot a mistake, please send us the claim and its source so we can review it.

Evidence behind the homepage example

The Denver supportive-housing example draws on the Urban Institute's randomized evaluation, its named partner list, and its financing brief. The Center for Housing and Health describes the separate Chicago program; the W. P. & H. B. White Foundation publishes its own application guidance. These records have different purposes and should not be merged into a claim of a current partnership or grant fit.

Corrections and source questions

Send a specific claim, organization name or source link through the support page. Please do not send private client files or sensitive personal information in an initial email.