Skip to content

· Private foundation

Bluestar Charitable 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.

$86k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$31k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$997kArts & Culture$146kEnvironment$33kAnimals$10kFood & Nutrition$4kEducation$3kPublic Safety & Disaster$1k
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k9 grants · $25k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $61k
$3,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$2.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MOBILE MANTRA$30,552
MOBILE MANTRA$30,059
ART ROCKS CLUB HOUSE$5,000
ARTISTS SPACE INC$5,000
CA TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND$5,000
SMALL HOPE BAY FOUNDATION$3,000
GAIANETWORK$3,000
WILDCARE$1,000
THE INTERNATIONAL SNOW LEOPARD TRUS$1,000
MARIN AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST$1,000
GREATER FARALLONES ASSOCIATION$1,000
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 (FY17–25, $997k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%MOBILE MANTRA INC: $685k → 14%MOBILE MANTRA: $57k → 14%MOBILE MANTRA INC: $55k → 14%MOBILE MANTRA INC: $50k → 14%MOBILE MANTRA: $31k → 14%MOBILE MANTRA: $30k → 14%MOBILE MANTRA INC: $25k → 14%MOBILE MANTRA INC: $22k → 14%MOBILE MANTRA INC: $22k → 14%MOBILE MANTRA INC: $20k → 14%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.
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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 12 repeat orgs$109k to everyone else

12 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
7

Total granted

$1.1M
$106k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+24%
+118%

Still filing today

75%
57%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsFood & NutritionArts & CultureHuman ServicesEnvironmentEducationOther
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

  • MM
    Mobile Mantra Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $997k · revenue +44% · 100% of their budget
  • AS
    ARTISTS SPACE INC
    5× · 2020–2025 · $28k · revenue +45%
  • W
    WILDCARE
    6× · 2019–2025 · $5k · revenue +291%

Funded once

  • MA
    MOUNTAIN ARTS NETWORK
    one grant, 2023 · $100k · revenue +1% · 46% of their budget
  • TN
    THE NEW VILLAGE SCHOOL
    one grant, 2019 · $3k · revenue -15%
  • RE
    REDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANKgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $1k · revenue +118%
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
Sempervirens Fund

To ensure coast redwood forests in the santa cruz mountains thrive for generations to come. since 1900, sempervirens has protected more than 36,000 acres. learn more about our mission, vision, and strategic plan through 2030 at:…

Environment
2
Sustainable Conservation

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…

Environment
3
California Wildlife Foundation

The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species

Animals
4
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
5
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
—
6
Ventana Wilderness Alliance

The mission of the Ventana Wilderness Alliance is to protect, preserve, and restore the wilderness qualities and biodiversity of the public lands within California's northern Santa Lucia Mountains and Big Sur coast.

Environment
7
Earth & Space Research

Increase societal understanding of the earth system through scientific research and education.

Science & Tech
8
Rainforest Trust

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

International
9
Environmental Defense Center

The organization protects and enhances the local environment through education, advocacy and legal action.

Crime & Legal
10
Montana Wildlife Federation

The montana wildlife federation is a statewide conservation organization dedicated to protecting wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public access for outdoor recreation.

Animals
11
Resource Renewal Institute

The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.

Environment
12
Volcan Mountain Foundation

The Volcan Mountain Foundation's mission is to preserve Volcan Mountain Range in its natural state for all generations.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildcare; the most unlike its peers is Mountain Arts Network. 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

13 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. 13 of the 20 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
10/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Mobile Mantra Inc: $996,597 · Human ServicesMobile Mantra IncMOUNTAIN ARTS NETWORK: $100,000 · Arts & CultureMOUNTAIN ART…ARTISTS SPACE INC: $27,500 · Arts & CultureARTISTS SPAC…CA TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $15,000 · OtherART ROCKS CLUB HOUSE: $15,000 · OtherWILDCARE: $5,000 · OtherGAIANETWORK: $3,000 · Other+6 more: $4,500 · OtherSmall Hope Bay Foundation Inc: $11,000 · EnvironmentINTERNATIONAL SNOW LEOPARD TRUST: $4,000 · AnimalsGREATER FARALLONES ASSOCIATION: $4,000 · Animals+1 more: $200 · AnimalsMARIN AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST: $3,000 · Food & NutritionREDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK: $1,000 · Food & NutritionTHE NEW VILLAGE SCHOOL: $3,000 · Education
Human Services$996,597Arts & Culture$127,500Other$42,500Environment$11,000Animals$8,200Food & Nutrition$4,000Education$3,000

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 budgetMobile Mantra Inc: $996,597 over 9y, 100% of budgetMOUNTAIN ARTS NETWORK: $100,000 over 1y, 46% of budgetARTISTS SPACE INC: $27,500 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetSmall Hope Bay Foundation Inc: $11,000 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetWILDCARE: $5,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL SNOW LEOPARD TRUST: $4,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetGREATER FARALLONES ASSOCIATION: $4,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetMARIN AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST: $3,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE NEW VILLAGE SCHOOL: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCALIFORNIA FIRE FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetREDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSIERRA CLUB: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCALIFORNIA MARINE SANCTUARY FOUNDATION: $200 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds Mobile Mantra Inc ↗
  • Who funds MOUNTAIN ARTS NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds ARTISTS SPACE INC ↗
  • Who funds Small Hope Bay Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds WILDCARE ↗
  • Who funds INTERNATIONAL SNOW LEOPARD TRUST ↗
  • Who funds GREATER FARALLONES ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds MARIN AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds THE NEW VILLAGE SCHOOL ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA FIRE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds REDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds SIERRA CLUB ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA MARINE SANCTUARY FOUNDATION ↗

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.

National Philanthropic TrustPA8.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Bluestar Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Bluestar Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 20 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 Bluestar’s filings →

    More from the funding graph