Skip to content
Attwood Williams Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Attwood Williams Charitable Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$2.2M
Granted FY2024still arriving
13
Grants FY2024still arriving
11
States reached
$2.0M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

89% of Attwood Williams Charitable Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to The Nature Conservancy, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 12 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Organizations named directly on the return

3
’23
12
’24

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2024.

Environment$2.2MArts & Culture$100kAnimals$51kEducation$20k
02FY2024 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k6 grants · $31k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $65k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $140k
  • $250k+1 grant · $2.0M
$10,000
Median grant
11
States reached
$48M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$2,000,000
BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE$140,000
AQUARIUM OF THE PACIFIC$25,000
HAWKWATCH INTERNATIONAL$10,000
HAWAII WILDLIFE CENTER$10,000
TETON RAPTOR CENTER$10,000
FRENCH AMERICAN SCHOOL OF PUGET SOUND (FASPS)$10,000
WILD BIRD FUND$8,000
AUSTIN BAT REFUGE$5,000
BLUE MOUNTAIN WILDLIFE$5,000
THE RAPTOR TRUST$5,000
ANIMALS IN DISTRESS$5,000
ROOSTER HAUS RESCUE$3,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY23–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 13% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE: $140k → 16%CREATIVE VISIONS FOUNDATION: $100k → 12%AQUARIUM OF THE PACIFIC: $25k → 14%HAWAII WILDLIFE CENTER: $10k → 15%WILD BIRD FUND: $8k → 17%AUSTIN BAT REFUGE: $5k → 10%BLUE MOUNTAIN WILDLIFE: $5k → 12%HAWKWATCH INTERNATIONAL: $10k → 8%ROOSTER HAUS RESCUE: $3k → 9%THE RAPTOR TRUST: $5k → 4%ANIMALS IN DISTRESS: $5k → 11%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $2.0M → 7%TETON RAPTOR CENTER: $10k → 5%AQUARIUM OF THE PACIFIC: $20k → 14%FRENCH AMERICAN SCHOOL OF PUGET SOUND (FASPS): $10k → 9%FRENCH AMERICAN SCHOOL OF PUGET SOUND (FASPS): $10k → 9%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MT
NY
OR
WY
NJ
CA
UT
VA
HI
TX
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Forever Wild Wildlife Rescue
Animals
2
Wild Souls Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation
Animals
3
Global Nest Exotic Bird Sanctuary
Animals
4
Soarin Hawk Raptor Rehabilitation Inc

Soarin' Hawk Raptor Rehab's mission is to conserve our raptor population through education and rehabilitation.

Animals
5
The Peregrine Fund Inc

To change the future for nature and humanity by conserving birds of prey worldwide.

—
6
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
7
Ojai Raptor Center

Ojai Raptor Center is dedicated to the care and protection of wildlife through the rehabilitation and release of sick, injured, and orphaned animals, participation in scientific efforts that improve standards of care, and education that…

Environment
8
Wildlife Conservation Society

The wildlife conservation society (wcs) saves wildlife and wild places worldwide through science, conservation action, education, and inspiring people to value nature.

Animals
9
Warbler Woods Bird Sanctuary
Animals
10
Oak Creek Zoological Conservatory
Animals
11
Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association

Hawk mountain sanctuary association's mission is to conserve birds of prey worldwide by providing leadership in raptor conservation science and education, and by maintaining hawk mountain sanctuary as a model observation, research, and…

Animals
12
Austin Wildlife Rescue

Wildlife Rescue Inc., rehabilitates and releases orphaned, sick, or injured wild animals and educates the public to co-exist with wildlife.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hawkwatch International Inc; the most unlike its peers is Rooster Haus Rescue. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

14 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
8/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $2,000,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY+2 more: $15,000 · OtherBLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC: $140,000 · EnvironmentCREATIVE VISIONS FOUNDATION: $100,000 · Arts & CultureAQUARIUM OF THE PACIFIC CORPORATION: $45,000 · AnimalsHAWKWATCH INTERNATIONAL INC: $10,000 · AnimalsHAWAII WILDLIFE CENTER: $10,000 · AnimalsWILD BIRD FUND INC: $8,000 · AnimalsAnimals In Distress Inc: $5,000 · AnimalsAUSTIN BAT REFUGE: $5,000 · AnimalsTHE RAPTOR TRUST: $5,000 · Animals+1 more: $3,000 · AnimalsFRENCH AMERICAN SCHOOL OF PUGET SOUND: $20,000 · Education
Other$2,015,000Environment$140,000Arts & Culture$100,000Animals$91,000Education$20,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $2,000,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC: $140,000 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetCREATIVE VISIONS FOUNDATION: $100,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetAQUARIUM OF THE PACIFIC CORPORATION: $45,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFRENCH AMERICAN SCHOOL OF PUGET SOUND: $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetHAWKWATCH INTERNATIONAL INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetTETON RAPTOR CENTER: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetHAWAII WILDLIFE CENTER: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetWILD BIRD FUND INC: $8,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetAnimals In Distress Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 6.7% of budgetAUSTIN BAT REFUGE: $5,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetBlue Mountain Wildlife: $5,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetTHE RAPTOR TRUST: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetROOSTER HAUS RESCUE: $3,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE6.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Attwood Williams Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Attwood Williams Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Blue Mountain Wildlife: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 14 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Attwood Williams’ filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home