· Private foundation
Bear Gulch Foundation
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k12 grants · $90k
- $10k–50k32 grants · $654k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $530k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| GOOD GRIEF NETWORK | $175,458 |
| TOWER HILL SCHOOL | $100,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION | $80,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD MAR MONTE | $65,000 |
| PENINSULA OPEN SPACE TRUST | $59,168 |
| AMERICARES | $50,000 |
| RADICAL MONARCHS | $40,000 |
| OREGON HUMANE SOCIETY | $39,530 |
| PATHFINDER INTERNATIONAL | $39,530 |
| THE LILTH FUND | $39,530 |
| BRIGID ALLIANCE | $39,530 |
| FRIENDS OF HUDDART & WUNDERLICH PARKS | $35,720 |
| RAICES | $24,766 |
| WOODSIDE-AREA HORSE OWNERS ASSOCIATION | $20,000 |
| OUTSIDE IN | $19,890 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $277k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 89% of those 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.
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 +12% since the first grant, against -2% for the ones you funded once.
77 repeat relationships — 46 still active in FY2025, 31 since wound down; 3 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, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k 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
- POPENINSULA OPEN SPACE TRUST9× · 2017–2025 · $548k · revenue +164%
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC9× · 2017–2025 · $495k · revenue +12%
OREGON HUMANE SOCIETY9× · 2017–2025 · $262k · revenue +26%
Funded once
- SMSAN MATEO COUNTY HISTORY MUSEUMone grant, 2020 · $101k
- NFNORTHBAY FIRE RELIEF FUNDone grant, 2017 · $25k
- LGLONGWOOD GARDENS INCgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $11k · revenue +35%
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.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.
The Chile-California Council is a San Francisco-based nonprofit dedicated to developing and promoting joint endeavors and cooperative relations between Chile and California, as well as individuals, legal entities and other institutions in…
Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…
The California Wilderness Coalition protects the natural landscapes that make California unique, providing clean air and water, a home to wildlife, and a place for recreation and spiritual renewal.
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.
The purpose of rainforest foundation us is to support indigenous peoples and forest communities in their efforts to secure their lands, protect their environment, and uphold their rights.
Nature collective's mission is to drive a passion for nature for all. we think inclusively and diversely when serving those devoid of nature those who remember nature and want to connect back to it and those who have an affinity with…
The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated and the most unlike its peers is Longwood Gardens Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 42 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
63 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 63 of the 91 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 PENINSULA OPEN SPACE TRUST ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds PATHFINDER INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds TOWER HILL SCHOOL ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds AMERICARES FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds GOOD GRIEF NETWORK ↗
- Who funds OREGON HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds OUTSIDE IN ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF HUDDART & WUNDERLICH PARKS ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD MAR MONTE INC ↗
- Who funds The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc ↗
- Who funds SEMPERVIRENS FUND ↗
- Who funds RADICAL MONARCHS ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds COMMITTEE ON THE SHELTERLESS ↗
- Who funds THE CORAL REEF ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTARY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds REFUGEE & IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR EDUCATION & LEGAL SERVICES ↗
- Who funds THE BRIGID ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds PETALUMA RIVER PARK FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
- Who funds THE CERES COMMUNITY PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Pollinator Partnership ↗
- Who funds ENGENDERHEALTH INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL CENTER FOR EQUINE FACILITATED THERAPY ↗
- Who funds SAN MATEO COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SAN MATEO COUNTY HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds SIERRA HARVEST ↗
- Who funds Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance ↗
- Who funds Green Foothills Foundation dba Green Foothills ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
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: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Orange County Community Foundation · Resources Legacy Fund · Tides Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · Atkinson Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Bothin Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · Sand Hill Foundation
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 Bear Gulch Foundation 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Outside in — 33% of income from government
- Zip Code Wilmington Inc — 21% of income from government
- Growing Gardens — 6% of income from government
- Verde Inc — 3% of income from government
- Friendly House Inc — 3% of income from government
- Americares Foundation Inc — 0% of income from government
- Tower Hill School Association — 0% of income from government
- Oxfam-America Inc — 0% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Bear Gulch Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Bear Gulch Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.