· Private foundation
Clem C Glass Foundation
Its FY2022 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
Read this first · the figures below need context
100% of Clem C Glass Foundation’s FY2022 grant dollars went to Orange County Community Foundation, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2022 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2021, the last year Clem C Glass Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 16 organizations, $61k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2022.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE WOODEN FLOOR | $5,000 |
| SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER | $4,000 |
| WORLD WILDLIFE FUND | $4,000 |
| PATHFINDER INTERNATIONAL | $4,000 |
| TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND | $4,000 |
| EARTHJUSTICE | $3,500 |
| THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY | $3,000 |
| CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS | $3,000 |
| ENGENDER HEALTH | $3,000 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE | $3,000 |
| NATURE CONSERVANCY | $3,000 |
| HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES | $3,000 |
| ACLU FOUNDATION | $3,000 |
| SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE | $2,000 |
| NATIONAL RESOURCES DEF COUNCIL | $2,000 |
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 (FY17–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 97% 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.
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 +62% since the first grant, against -5% for the ones you funded once.
25 repeat relationships — 18 still active in FY2021, 7 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call). Read against FY2021, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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 FY2021, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9k 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
- TWTHE WOODEN FLOOR FOR YOUTH MOVEMENT5× · 2017–2021 · $16k · revenue +10%
- SPSOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC5× · 2017–2021 · $16k · revenue +10%
THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND5× · 2017–2021 · $16k · revenue +109%
Funded once
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATEDgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $2k · revenue +202%- AIACCION INTERNATIONALone grant, 2017 · $500 · revenue -5%
- AIAFS-USA INCone grant, 2017 · $500 · revenue -27%
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.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
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.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
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…
We safeguard the earth: its people, its plants and animals, and (see schedule o) the natural systems on which all life depends. we work to restore the integrity of the elements that sustain life - air, land, and water - to defend…
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
Cdp north america, inc. 's ("cdp-na") vision for the future is a thriving economy that works for people and planet in the long term. we focus investors and companies on taking urgent action to build a truly sustainable economy by measuring…
Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.
Nrgi envisions a world where natural resources enable fair, prosperous and sustainable societies, instead of undermining them. nrgi exists because decisions about how natural resources are governed determine the well-being of people in…
To advocate for policy changes by governments and corporations in order to preserve ocean life and return the oceans to their former abundance.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Trust for Public Land and the most unlike its peers is Guttmacher Institute 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 53 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% 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.
28 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. 28 of the 33 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 ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE WOODEN FLOOR FOR YOUTH MOVEMENT ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds PATHFINDER INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds OXFAM-AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance ↗
- Who funds THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds WE ARE GROUNDSWELL ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES ↗
- Who funds POPULATION CONNECTION ↗
- Who funds Guttmacher Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds YOSEMITE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TREEPEOPLE INC ↗
- Who funds SAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds ENGENDERHEALTH INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES ↗
- Who funds GREENPEACE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ACCION INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds AFS-USA 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: The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Clem C Glass 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.
- 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.