Skip to content
Bashaw Family Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Bashaw Family Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$230k
Granted FY2025still arriving
23
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$39k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2025.

Health$150kAnimals$115kEducation$109kRecreation & Sports$106kEnvironment$41kPublic Safety & Disaster$29kScience & Tech$25kHuman Services$18kOther$0
02FY2025 · 23 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k13 grants · $69k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $161k
$7,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$5.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HIGHER GROUND$38,500
CAMP RAINBOW GOLD$28,000
PILOTS N PAWS$15,000
PROJECT RECOVERY$14,000
SUN VALLEY CULINARY INSTITUTE$13,000
ALL HANDS & HEARTS$12,000
SUN VALLEY SKI EDUCATION FOUNDATION$10,000
TOM WATHEN CENTER$10,000
CATALINA ISLAND CONSERVANCY$10,000
CSI FOUNDATION DIESEL MECHANIC$10,000
SWEET BEAU HORSES$8,000
PROJECT K9 HERO$7,000
THE SAINT MARYS COLLEGE OF MARYLAND FOUNDATION$6,000
NEWPORT HARBOR SAILING FOUNDATION$6,000
SAINT LUKES WOOD RIVER FOUNDATION$6,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY23–25, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 28% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%DNA DOE PROJECT: $8k → 9%JUNGLE KEEPERS: $2k → 14%DNA DOE PROJECT: $5k → 9%CAMP KESEM NATIONAL: $5k → 14%SWIFTSURE RANCH: $5k → 7%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

ID
IL
NY
MA
CA
KY
MD
TN
SC
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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$445k · 15 repeat orgs$189k to everyone else

15 repeat relationships: 13 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
18

Total granted

$445k
$122k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+4%

Still filing today

87%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $67k went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’23’24’25
AnimalsHealthHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsEnvironmentYouth DevelopmentOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • SV
    SUN VALLEY CULINARY INSTITUTE INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $43k · revenue +8%
  • WI
    WWWPILOTSNPAWSORG INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $35k · revenue +95%
  • ALL HANDS AND HEARTS SMART RESPONSE INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $19k · revenue +80%

Funded once

  • AS
    ANIMAL SHELTER OF WOOD RIVER VALLEY DBA MOUNTAIN HUMANE
    one grant, 2023 · $32k · revenue +17%
  • CF
    CSI FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $25k
  • SR
    SWIFTSURE RANCH THERAPEUTIC EQUESTRIAN CENTER INC
    one grant, 2024 · $5k · revenue 0%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its 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
Sierra Watch

Sierra watch secures conservation outcomes to protect the natural resources, mountain communities, and timeless values of the tahoe sierra.

Environment
2
Worldwide Vets Incorporated

Our goal is to sustainably improve animal welfare, provide veterinary care, and improve veterinary education globally. in order to achieve this goal, we work in over 10 countries, across 5 continents, supporting local people and animals,…

Animals
3
Southern California Equine Foundation Inc

Providing equine veterinary hospital facilities and support services in the care of injured or sick race horses

Animals
4
The Wright Ranch Rescue Inc

Wildlife rescue and rehabilitation

Animals
5
Washington Wildlife & Recreation Coalition

Creating a greener, healthier, more equitable, and better Washington for all through community outreach, network building, and advocacy for conservation and outdoor recreation funding.

—
6
Wildearth Guardians

Wildearth guardians works to protect and restore the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the american west.

Unclassified
7
Silicon Valley Pet Project

Silicon valley pet project (svpp) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization committed to saving local at-risk shelter pets through rescue, community involvement and education.

Animals
8
The California Wildlife Center

The california wildlife center (cwc) takes responsibility for the protection of all native wildlife through rehabilitiation, education and conservation. as the los angeles area's premier wildlife medical care and rehabilitation facility,…

Health
9
Conservation Farms & Ranches

Preserving and enhancing the habitat of wildlife, such as sandhill cranes, waterfowl, raptors, which habitat expenses are supported by agricultural activities.

Housing & Shelter
10
Northern California Regional Land Trust

The purpose of the organization is to monitor, manage, and preserve conservation easements it stewards in northern california. the organization acquires conservation easements in land exhibiting important natural features to protect and…

Environment
11
The Water Research Foundation

The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…

Environment
12
Rocky Mountain Wild

Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildlife Conservation Network Inc; the most unlike its peers is Junglekeepers Inc. 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

28 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 28 of the 43 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

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

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
28/28
Grantees still filing
14/28
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SANTA CATALINA ISLAND CONSERVANCY: $26,000 · OtherSANTA CATALINA ISLAND CONSERVANCYCSI FOUNDATION: $25,000 · OtherCSI FOUNDATIONBUD PURDY SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $12,500 · OtherBUD PURDY SCHOLARSHIP FUNDTHE SAINT MARYS COLLEGE OF MARYLAND FOUNDATION: $11,000 · OtherSUN VALLEY SKI EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · OtherCSI FOUNDATION DIESEL MECHANIC: $10,000 · OtherDNA DOE PROJECT: $13,000 · OtherDNA DOE PROJECTALL HANDS AND HEARTS SMART RESPONSE INC: $19,000 · OtherALL HANDS AND HEARTS SMART RESPONSE IN…PROJECT RECOVERY INC: $14,000 · OtherPROJECT RECOVERY INCWOOD RIVER LAND TRUST CO: $8,000 · Other+16 more: $68,500 · Other+16 moreWWWPILOTSNPAWSORG INC: $35,000 · AnimalsWWWPILOTSNPAWSORG I…ANIMAL SHELTER OF WOOD RIVER VALLEY DBA MOUNTAIN HUMANE: $31,600 · AnimalsANIMAL SHELTER OF W…SWEETBEAU HORSES: $26,000 · AnimalsSWEETBEAU HORSESPROJECT K9 HERO: $7,000 · AnimalsPROJECT K9 HEROWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $5,000 · AnimalsPRICELESS PUPPY RESCUE CORP: $5,000 · Animals+1 more: $2,000 · AnimalsCAMP RAINBOW GOLD INC: $97,600 · Youth DevelopmentCAMP RAINBOW GOLD…HIGHER GROUND USA INC: $78,500 · Recreation & SportsHIGHER GROUND US…NEWPORT HARBOR SAILING FOUNDATION: $16,000 · Recreation & SportsNEWPORT HARBOR S…SUN VALLEY CULINARY INSTITUTE INC: $43,000 · EducationThe Tom Wathen Center: $35,000 · PhilanthropyST LUKE'S WOOD RIVER FOUNDATION INC: $14,000 · HealthANGEL FLIGHT WEST INC: $10,000 · HealthJOHN WAYNE CANCER FOUNDATION: $4,000 · HealthTHROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: $4,000 · HealthNOT ONE MORE VET INC: $3,000 · Health
Other$217,000Animals$111,600Youth Development$97,600Recreation & Sports$94,500Education$43,000Philanthropy$35,000Health$35,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCAMP RAINBOW GOLD INC: $97,600 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetHIGHER GROUND USA INC: $78,500 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetSUN VALLEY CULINARY INSTITUTE INC: $43,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetThe Tom Wathen Center: $35,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetWWWPILOTSNPAWSORG INC: $35,000 over 3y, 2.4% of budgetANIMAL SHELTER OF WOOD RIVER VALLEY DBA MOUNTAIN HUMANE: $31,600 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetSANTA CATALINA ISLAND CONSERVANCY: $26,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSWEETBEAU HORSES: $26,000 over 3y, 3.5% of budgetALL HANDS AND HEARTS SMART RESPONSE INC: $19,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetNEWPORT HARBOR SAILING FOUNDATION: $16,000 over 3y, 4.9% of budgetST LUKE'S WOOD RIVER FOUNDATION INC: $14,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetDNA DOE PROJECT: $13,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetANGEL FLIGHT WEST INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSUN VALLEY SKI EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWOOD RIVER LAND TRUST CO: $8,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSWIFTSURE RANCH THERAPEUTIC EQUESTRIAN CENTER INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCamp Kesem National: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSIERRA NEVADA ALLIANCE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE SKIN CANCER FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPRICELESS PUPPY RESCUE CORP: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetJOHN WAYNE CANCER FOUNDATION: $4,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: $4,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNOT ONE MORE VET INC: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetJUNGLEKEEPERS INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHOROUGHBRED CHARITIES OF AMERICA INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

Orange County Communi…Spur Community Founda…Morgan Stanley Global…National Philanthropi…The Blackbaud Giving …American Endowment Fo…Vanguard Charitable E…The Bank of America C…Network for GoodAmerican Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Paypal Charitable Giv…
Orange County Community FoundationCA14.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Orange County Community Foundation · Spur Community Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund

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 Bashaw Family Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Bashaw Family Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 43 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Bashaw Family’s 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