· Public charity
California Native Plant Society
To protect Californias native plants and their natural habitats, today and into the future, through science, education, stewardship, gardening, and advocacy
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.
The 3 grants below total $151,664 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $342,031 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $190,367 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $6k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $47k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $99k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| The Regents of the UC | $98,566 |
| Peninsula Conservation Center | $47,098 |
| South Coast Botanic Garden | $6,000 |
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 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 84% 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.
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 +85% since the first grant, against +65% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2025, 5 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, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $152k 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
- PVPALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY7× · 2017–2024 · $70k · revenue +85%
- FOFRIENDS OF EDGEWOOD NATURAL PRESERVE3× · 2020–2024 · $31k · revenue -27%
- LBLUNADA BAY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION2× · 2019–2022 · $27k
Funded once
- EBEast Bay Regional Park Distone grant, 2022 · $100k
- RSRANCHO SANTA ANA BOTANIC GARDENgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $30k · revenue +65%
- UDUC Davisone grant, 2022 · $16k
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.
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 Santa Clara River Conservancy represents the diverse interests of the Santa Clara River, from the flood plain to the highest tributaries, and seeks to secure, sustain, and manage significant lands and waters that provide habitat for…
Organization was able to support efforts for the protection and sustainability of the unique pacific coast environments
Since 2004, the South Bay Parkland Conservancy (SBPC) has been committed to preserving open space and creating more parks in the coastal cities of the South Bay in Los Angeles, CA. We are dedicated to helping make the community a better…
Arlington Garden is a climate-appropriate, habitat garden offering learning, inspiration, and enjoyment for all.
The preservation and maintenance of environmentally sensitive coastal wetlands.
Placer Land Trust works with willing landowners and conservation partners to permanently protect and care for natural and agricultural lands in Placer County for current and future generations.
The Wildlands Conservancy's dual mission is to preserve the beauty and biodiversity of the earth and to provide programs so that children may know the wonder and joy of nature.
Supporting the water conservation garden in promoting water conservation in the southern california landscape through excellent programs and exhibits that educate and inspire the public.
The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species
The Cayucos Land Conservancy is committed to the enduring preservation of the rural greenbelt that surrounds Cayucos, California. Preserving this historic and stunning open space is the primary goal of the land conservancy, so that future…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy and the most unlike its peers is Planning & Conservation League. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
9 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. 9 of the 16 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 PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds Peninsula Conservation Center Management Council ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF EDGEWOOD NATURAL PRESERVE ↗
- Who funds RANCHO SANTA ANA BOTANIC GARDEN ↗
- Who funds Planning & Conservation League ↗
- Who funds SIERRA HEALTH FOUNDATION CENTER FOR HEALTH PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ↗
- Who funds GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust ↗
- Who funds SOUTH COAST BOTANIC GARDEN FOUNDATION INC ↗
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: California Community Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 California Native Plant Society 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.
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.