· Private foundation
Clark and Christine Ivory 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k17 grants · $65k
- $10k–50k26 grants · $417k
- $50k–250k16 grants · $1.8M
- $250k+3 grants · $6.7M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNIVERSITY OF UTAH | $4,121,332 |
| THIS IS THE PLACE FOUNDATION | $1,585,000 |
| COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF UTAH | $1,000,000 |
| UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY | $209,500 |
| INTERMOUNTAIN FOUNDATION | $200,000 |
| GRANITE EDUCATION FOUNDATION | $179,292 |
| NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE ASSOCIATION | $165,000 |
| PREVENT CHILD ABUSE UTAH | $150,000 |
| TREEUTAH | $144,478 |
| SCHOLARSHIP-IVORY CONST-BLDG SCIENCE PATHWAYS | $114,000 |
| FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN | $110,000 |
| UTAH SPORT COMMISSION | $103,000 |
| THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS | $100,000 |
| SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY | $75,000 |
| JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES | $75,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $1.6M) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 51% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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 +81% since the first grant, against +21% for the ones you funded once.
78 repeat relationships — 40 still active in FY2024, 38 since wound down; 20 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $565k 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
- TITHIS IS THE PLACE FOUNDATION INC7× · 2017–2024 · $3.1M · revenue +60%
- UNUTAH NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION2× · 2019–2020 · $2.0M · revenue +6%
- NHNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE ASSN7× · 2018–2024 · $750k · revenue +36%
Funded once
- IIIVORY INNOVATIONSone grant, 2023 · $7.4M · revenue -41% · 36% of their budget
- TLTHE LDS CHURCHone grant, 2017 · $1.3M
- SISorenson Impact Foundationone grant, 2018 · $233k · revenue -65%
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.
To serve as a catalyst for quality job growth and increased capital investment in the state.
Provide support to the University of Utah Growth Capital Partners Foundation in Charitable, Educational and Scientific purposes.
Utah's promise (up) is committed to 100% of kids and families thriving. we unify leaders, partners, communities and systems to achieve that promise.
Treating substance use disorders, rebuilding lives, strengthening families, and empowering women.
The utah impact partnership was organized for community leaders, governments and donors to create solutions and form collective responses to homelessness and housing instability in the state of utah, actions that will lead to social…
Utah foundation's mission is to produce objective, thorough and well- reasoned research and analysis that promotes the effective use of public resources, a thriving economy, a well-prepared workforce and a high quality of life for utahns.…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Salt Lake Chamber Foundation and the most unlike its peers is The Huntsman Foundation. 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 23 years old; the field is 11. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 29% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1.0% lost their exemption, against 15% 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.
85 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. 85 of the 178 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 IVORY INNOVATIONS ↗
- Who funds THIS IS THE PLACE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds The Community Foundation of Utah ↗
- Who funds UTAH NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds UTAH COMMUNITY BUILDERS ↗
- Who funds NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE ASSN ↗
- Who funds THE ROAD HOME ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds TREE UTAH ↗
- Who funds Granite Education Foundation ↗
- Who funds UTAHS FIRST LADY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Sorenson Impact Foundation ↗
- Who funds TERNER HOUSING INNOVATION LABS INC ↗
- Who funds THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE INC ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds THE URBAN INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds SLCC FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PREVENT CHILD ABUSE UTAH ↗
- Who funds KEN GARFF FOR GOOD ↗
- Who funds Utah Sports Commission ↗
- Who funds Kostopulos Dream Foundation ↗
- Who funds Claremont Graduate University ↗
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: Sorenson Legacy Foundation · The Community Foundation of Utah · George S and Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation · Larry H Miller and Gail Miller Family Foundation · Ihc Health Services Inc · Beesley Family Foundation · Dominion Energy Charitable Foundation · Lawrence & Janet Dee Foundation · Joan and Tim Fenton Family Foundation · The Huntsman Foundation · Wcf Foundation · Semnani Family 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 Clark and Christine Ivory 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.
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% 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 Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Clark and Christine Ivory 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.