· Private foundation
Dana Sila 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 FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k34 grants · $61k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $17k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ASSOCIACIO SARANA | $16,835 |
| BUDDHIST GLOBAL RELIEF | $5,000 |
| TIDES ADVOCACY | $5,000 |
| GRIP TRAINING INSTITUTE | $3,500 |
| SOCIAL GOOD FUND | $3,147 |
| PALESTINE CHILDRENS RELIEF FUND | $3,099 |
| EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE | $2,575 |
| SOI DOG FOUNDATION | $2,500 |
| DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS USA INC | $2,250 |
| WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC | $2,250 |
| VOCAL-NY | $2,100 |
| GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL | $2,058 |
| EAST NEW YORK CLT INC | $2,000 |
| NATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS | $1,560 |
| SOGOREA TE LAND TE LAND TRUST | $1,545 |
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 US giving — 82% of grant dollars ($363k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 18% that went abroad ($81k) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY21–24, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 38% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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
Beyond the US — 18% of all-years giving ($81k)
4 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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 +34% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
30 repeat relationships — 18 still active in FY2024, 12 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, 33% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k 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
- BGBUDDHIST GLOBAL RELIEF A NJ NONPROFIT CORPORATION5× · 2019–2024 · $36k · revenue +48%
- BUBROOKE USA INC4× · 2021–2024 · $7k · revenue +68%
- LPLIVINGDYING PROJECT3× · 2022–2024 · $7k · revenue +77%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2018 · $10k
- SRSPIRIT ROCK INSIGHT MEDITATION CENTERone grant, 2018 · $5k
COMMONWEALgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue +142%
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.
Global Forest Generation restores and protects forest ecosystems in partnership with grassroots leaders and local communities across vast landscapes which play a critical role in preserving water, protecting biodiversity, storing carbon,…
To protect the rainforest and advance the rights of Indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with Indigenous communities in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability, and the preservation of the Amazon Basin's…
The organization is the only international buddhist animal rights/advocacy organization in the world. we educate and advocate for vegetarian diets.
CRI is an international climate and human rights monitoring and advocacy organization dedicated to preventing climate change and human rights abuses.
International Rivers protects rivers and defends the rights of communities that depend on them.
Wildlife conservation global, inc. operates the okapi conservation project (ocp) which works in the democratic republic of the congo with the institute in congo for the conservation of nature (iccn) and local communities throughout the…
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.
Animal outlook is a national animal protection organization working to end the abuse of farmed animals using a variety of strategies, including investigations, legal advocacy, corporate and food system reform, and vegan outreach.
To offer the dignity of fair employment to people living in impoverished communities, who become transformational agents of global forest restoration.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
Using legal advocacy to make advances in science and technology safer for people and the planet.
To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc and the most unlike its peers is Commonweal. 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 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.
39 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. 39 of the 66 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 BUDDHIST GLOBAL RELIEF A NJ NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Soi Dog Foundation USA ↗
- Who funds BROOKE USA INC ↗
- Who funds LIVINGDYING PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Asia Wild ↗
- Who funds ORANGUTAN FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds COMMONWEAL ↗
- Who funds TIDES ADVOCACY ↗
- Who funds New York Insight Inc ↗
- Who funds POLAR BEARS INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds AMAZON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds GRIP TRAINING INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL GOOD FUND INC ↗
- Who funds PALESTINE CHILDREN'S RELIEF FUND ↗
- Who funds San Francisco Dharma Collective ↗
- Who funds MERCY FOR ANIMALS INC ↗
- Who funds Physicians Committee for Responsible Med ↗
- Who funds Compassion in World Farming Inc ↗
- Who funds EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds Project Apis M 20 Inc ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds VOICES OF COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS & LEADERS (VOCAL-NY) 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: Impactassetsinc · BESS Family Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · The Frederick P Lenz Foundation for American Buddhism · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · AbbVie Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Network for Good
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 Dana Sila 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.
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.