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.
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.
Aggregated scale claims from orgs in the slice. Treat as a floor, not a ceiling — many orgs don't publish these numbers, so totals underrepresent real reach. Extreme outliers (often unit-mismatches upstream) are filtered out.