· Private foundation
Cornuelle Family 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 FY2017–2023.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2023
- Under $10k17 grants · $98k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $58k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PUNAHOU SCHOOL | $18,000 |
| SOUTHEASTERN GUIDE DOGS INC | $10,000 |
| COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY | $10,000 |
| HORSES OF TIR NA NOG | $10,000 |
| MAUI UNITED WAY INC LAHAINA FIRE RELIEF FUND | $10,000 |
| PUNAHOU SCHOOL | $9,000 |
| LILJESTRAND FOUNDATION | $7,000 |
| HELPING HAND FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT | $6,500 |
| MERCY CORPS | $6,500 |
| SAVE THE CHILDREN | $6,500 |
| MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERS USA | $6,500 |
| ALIGHT | $6,500 |
| COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE (CARE) | $6,500 |
| UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME DU LAC | $6,000 |
| POMONA COLLEGE | $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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–23, $106k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 65% 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +39% since the first grant, against +29% for the ones you funded once.
32 repeat relationships — 17 still active in FY2023, 15 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (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 FY2023, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k 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
- PSPUNAHOU SCHOOL7× · 2017–2023 · $78k · revenue +34%
- SGSoutheastern Guide Dogs Inc7× · 2017–2023 · $58k · revenue +146%
- CLConservation Lands Foundation6× · 2017–2022 · $58k · revenue +31%
Funded once
- FSFEEDING SAN DIEGOgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue +29%
- CSCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY ERLone grant, 2021 · $10k
- OFOXFORD FOR THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY INSTITUTEone grant, 2022 · $9k
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.
Colorado open lands' mission is to preserve the significant open lands and natural heritage of colorado through private and public partnerships, innovative land conservation, and strategic leadership.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
Oregon agricultural trust partners with farmers and ranchers to protect agricultural lands for the benefit of oregons economy, communities, and landscapes.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
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…
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
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…
To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.
The mission of the montana land reliance (mlr) is to partner with landowners to provide permanent protection for private lands that are significant for agricultural production, fish and wildlife habitat, and open space.
Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia's wild ecosystems in the forests,in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…
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 Feeding San Diego and the most unlike its peers is The Liljestrand 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 39 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% 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.
34 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. 34 of the 44 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 PUNAHOU SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds Southeastern Guide Dogs Inc ↗
- Who funds Conservation Lands Foundation ↗
- Who funds HORSES OF TIR NA NOG ↗
- Who funds Mercy Corps ↗
- Who funds Deschutes Land Trust ↗
- Who funds University of Notre Dame du Lac ↗
- Who funds Chewonki Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds ALIGHT ↗
- Who funds HELPING HAND FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT INC ↗
- Who funds Save The Children Federation Inc ↗
- Who funds COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC ↗
- Who funds OREGON HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds POMONA COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds CATO INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds AMERICANS FOR OXFORD INC ↗
- Who funds COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CIRCLE OF FRIENDS ↗
- Who funds THE LILJESTRAND FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY ↗
- Who funds YMCA OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ↗
- Who funds COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds FEEDING SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds Big Sur Land Trust ↗
- Who funds THE HUMANE LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds SEED TO TABLE OREGON ↗
- Who funds SOUND EQUINE OPTIONS ↗
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 Oregon Community Foundation · The Douglas and Gloria Rumberger Foundation · The Roundhouse Foundation · The Collins Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · Patagoniaorg · Ibm International Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Cornuelle Family 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.
- Mercy Corps — 47% of income from government
- Deschutes Land Trust — 46% of income from government
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- Wallowa Land Trust — 3% of income from government
- Southeastern Guide Dogs 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.