· Private foundation
Cloud Mountain 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 FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k3 grants · $15k
- $10k–50k71 grants · $1.8M
- $50k–250k30 grants · $2.4M
- $250k+1 grant · $250k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $250,000 |
| SCIENCE & ENVIR HEALTH NETWORK | $210,000 |
| GRASSROOTS FUND | $200,000 |
| SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION | $177,000 |
| CDER | $150,000 |
| BOLD ALLIANCE | $150,000 |
| NEW WORLD FOUND FRACKING FUND | $100,000 |
| NEW WORLD FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| CENTER FOR MEDIA & DEMOCRACY | $100,000 |
| STORY OF STUFF | $90,000 |
| UNKOCH MY CAMPUSESSENTIAL INFORMATION | $85,000 |
| THE OTHER 98 ACTION | $85,000 |
| LOUSIANA BUCKET BRIGADE | $60,000 |
| WESTERN MINING ACTION NETWORK | $60,000 |
| PROJECT OF GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT | $60,000 |
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 (FY19–22, $28k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 91% 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.
136 repeat relationships — 85 still active in FY2024, 51 since wound down; 16 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, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $810k 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
- SMSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION6× · 2019–2024 · $2.1M · revenue +170%
- BABOLD ALLIANCE INC6× · 2019–2024 · $750k · revenue +15% · 61% of their budget
- TSTHE SHEFFIELD LAND TRUST INC5× · 2019–2024 · $390k · revenue +886% · 34% of their budget
Funded once
- CFCENTER FOR DEMOCRATIC AND ENVIRONMENTone grant, 2023 · $150k
- CFCENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICEone grant, 2023 · $150k
- CFCENTER FOR HEALTH ENVIRONMENT & JUSTICEone grant, 2023 · $150k
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.
Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.
Our mission is to fight against fossil fuel executives and industries that have turned our communities into dumping grounds for toxic waste, poisoning our air, water, lan, and bodies. We organize to oppose giant oil refineries, dirty…
E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
Clean water action is a national citizens organization working for clean, safe, and affrodable water, prevention of health threatening pollution, creation of environmentally safe jobs and busnesses and empowerment of people to make…
To empower frontline communities to lead nature-based solutions that advance climate justice, ecosystem restoration, and resilient livelihoods through connecting locally-led initiatives to funding, markets, and technical support.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
Educational & charitable. to provide legal and scientific information to public interest attorneys and scientists in numerous countries.
International Rivers protects rivers and defends the rights of communities that depend on them.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environment America Inc and the most unlike its peers is River Valley Organizing. 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 26 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.9% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
109 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. 109 of the 203 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BOLD ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY INC ↗
- Who funds THE NEW WORLD FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE SHEFFIELD LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds Coalition for Good Governance ↗
- Who funds COLUMBUS INSTITUTE FOR COMTEMPORARY JOURNALISM ↗
- Who funds SCHUMACHER CENTER FOR A NEW ECONOMICS INC ↗
- Who funds LOUISIANA BUCKET BRIGADE ↗
- Who funds WEST VIRGINIA RIVERS COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds FOOD & WATER WATCH ↗
- Who funds TRUTHOUT ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURE & TRADE POLICY ↗
- Who funds FREE SPEECH FOR PEOPLE INC ↗
- Who funds DEEP SOUTH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ↗
- Who funds BERKSHIRE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION TEAM INC ↗
- Who funds PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT INC ↗
- Who funds Texas Campaign for the Environment Fund ↗
- Who funds Earthworks ↗
- Who funds MOUNTAIN WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds JUSTICE THROUGH MUSIC PROJECT ↗
- Who funds SOUL FIRE FARM INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds NEW ECONOMY COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund ↗
- Who funds Ironbound Community Corporation ↗
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: Windward Fund · Tides Foundation · Rockefeller Family Fund Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Schmidt Family Foundation · Park Foundation Inc · Patagoniaorg · Rsf Social Finance Inc · Impactassetsinc · United States Energy Foundation · New Venture Fund · Proteus Fund Inc
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 Cloud Mountain 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Ironbound Community Corporation — 100% of income from government
- Housatonic River Initiative Inc — 79% of income from government
- Railroad Street Youth Project Inc — 45% of income from government
- Massachusetts Audubon Society Inc — 1% 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.