Ranked by activity breadth, method diversity, and network reach across the slice. Attach a memo to this report and this list re-ranks around your intent.
Concrete structural gaps — method mix, geographic concentration, coalition density, funder diversity. Evidence is cited from the slice's own numbers.
Orange headquarters dots are sized by how many grantees are
based in the state. Green circles mark real locations these orgs say they serve —
from city-level populations in this slice's impact_map_populations data.
Toggle layers at the bottom right.
Funders named as a funding source on these orgs' own materials. The count is the number of orgs in this slice that cite them — higher means a funder with demonstrable commitment to the field.
Theories of action extracted from the orgs in this slice. The count is how many orgs cite each one — a strategy run by many orgs in common is a through-line; one cited by a single org is still surfaced so the reader can gauge the full spread.
How each shared strategy breaks down across the four activity types the orgs running it actually do.
Entities these orgs explicitly call out as partners, coalition members, or networks. Unlike the strategy-sharing graph below (which is inferred from shared approaches), these are relationships the orgs claim on their own sites.
Inferred from shared theories of action: each line connects an org to a strategy it runs. Organizations that share many strategies cluster through the same nodes — funders can spot the field's structural bridges.
Orgs that combine the highest activity counts with the broadest strategy reach — the default entry points for a funder diligencing this field.