· Private foundation
Alex C Walker Educational & Charitable
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k4 grants · $125k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $376k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| AMIGOS OF COSTA RICA INC | $96,000 |
| BROOKINGS INSTITUTION | $80,000 |
| CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY | $80,000 |
| NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION | $70,000 |
| OUR CHILDREN'S TRUST | $50,000 |
| NUCLEAR NEW YORK INC | $45,000 |
| PRICING CARBON INITIATIVE INC | $40,000 |
| THE BREAKTHROUGH INSTITUTE | $20,000 |
| INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS | $20,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 69% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
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 — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 13% of Alex C Walker Educational & Charitable’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +66% since the first grant, against +57% for the ones you funded once.
18 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- TBTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION7× · 2017–2025 · $361k · revenue +2%
- NWNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION7× · 2019–2025 · $320k · revenue +66%
- TNTHE NISKANEN CENTER INC6× · 2017–2022 · $215k · revenue +182%
Funded once
- GEGOOD ENERGY COLLECTIVE INCone grant, 2022 · $60k · revenue -22%
- NINUCLEAR INNOVATION ALLIANCEgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $50k · revenue +175%
- CTCARBON TAX CENTERone grant, 2024 · $45k · revenue -87% · 83% of their budget
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
Researching policy ideas on climate and clean energy in India, engaging legislators and business leaders to discuss those ideas.
The climate institute is organized for the purpose of educating the general public and policy makers as to the gravity of potential climate change, exploring the policy implications of the latest scientific findings on climate modelling…
To research and develop centrist policy ideas.
Transform the global energy system to secure a clean, prosperous, zero-carbon future for all.
We safeguard the earth: its people, its plants and animals, and (see schedule o) the natural systems on which all life depends. we work to restore the integrity of the elements that sustain life - air, land, and water - to defend…
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Present Netzeroco2 manuscript at climate change conferences and lead a 35 PhD team to debunk climate change garbage of the iPCC
Shape and drive bold policy solutions to achieve equitable carbon-neutral economies.
Climate group advances climate action by mobilizing business and government leadership to drive systemic decarbonization across energy, transport, and industry, while engaging the public through large-scale convenings and global platforms.…
The nonpartisan center for climate and energy solutions works to secure a safe and stable climate by accelerating the global transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and a thriving, just, and resilient economy. for over 25 years,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Open Space Institute Inc and the most unlike its peers is National Wildlife Federation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
22 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 22 of the 27 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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.
- Who funds OUR CHILDREN'S TRUST ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY ↗
- Who funds THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds THE NISKANEN CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds PRICING CARBON INITIATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds AMIGOS OF COSTA RICA INC ↗
- Who funds KARUNA CENTER FOR PEACEBUILDING INC ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds NUCLEAR NEW YORK INC ↗
- Who funds GOOD ENERGY COLLECTIVE INC ↗
- Who funds OneReef Worldwide Stewardship ↗
- Who funds Resources for the Future Inc ↗
- Who funds NUCLEAR INNOVATION ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds CARBON TAX CENTER ↗
- Who funds OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds The Breakthrough Institute ↗
- Who funds HOWELL CONSERVATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Partnership for Responsible Growth Inc ↗
- Who funds INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS INC ↗
- Who funds CONTINA IMPACT ↗
- Who funds ECOFLIGHT ↗
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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Breakthrough Energy Foundation · Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust · Jewish Communal Fund · The Rodel Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Seattle Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc
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 organization Alex C Walker Educational & Charitable 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Karuna Center for Peacebuilding Inc — 1% of income from government
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 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.