Skip to content
David P Watson Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

David P Watson Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$567k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$120k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$459kAnimals$332kFood & Nutrition$265kHuman Services$253kPhilanthropy$252kEducation$60kInternational$10kEnvironment$2kOther$0
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $65k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $502k
$80,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$11M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SOUND EQUINE OPTIONS$120,000
JIMMY MILLER FOUNDATION$80,000
RICHSTONE FAMILY CENTER$80,000
GROWING GREAT$80,000
DOERNBECHER CHILDRENS HOSPITAL FOUNDATION$80,000
FORWARD STRIDE$62,000
ALBERTINA KERR CENTERS$40,000
THRIVE IN JOY NICK FAGNANO FOUNDATION$25,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY22–25, $212k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 47% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%FORWARD STRIDE: $62k → 8%FORWARD STRIVE: $50k → 8%ALBERTINA KERR CENTERS: $40k → 12%ALBERTINA KERR CENTERS: $40k → 12%ALBERTINA KERR CENTERS: $15k → 12%ALBERTINA KERR CENTERS: $5k → 12%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.6M · 9 repeat orgs$17k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +64% since the first grant, against -24% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
5

Total granted

$1.6M
$17k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+64%
-24%

Still filing today

67%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthAnimalsEducationFood & NutritionEnvironmentOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • SE
    SOUND EQUINE OPTIONS
    4× · 2022–2025 · $330k · revenue +79%
  • G
    GROWINGGREAT
    5× · 2017–2025 · $265k · revenue +78%
  • FORWARD STRIDE
    2× · 2024–2025 · $112k · revenue +17%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
  • PB
    Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation of the United States Inc
    one grant, 2018 · $2k · revenue -42%
  • RR
    Rover Rescue
    one grant, 2018 · $2k · revenue -24%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Waves for Change Foundation Ltd

Since 2009, we have worked with Universities, children and young people to develop a community based, child-friendly mental health service. Through published, participatory research, our Surf Therapy programme has been co-designed with…

Recreation & Sports
2
Positive Change Can Happen
Philanthropy
3
Olalla Center

To help strengthen and heal children and families, and the community. olalla center's staff believes all children and families can heal and this premise is the foundation of olalla center's treatment philosophy and the basis for their work.

—
4
Children's Hospital & Research Center At Oakland

The mission of children's hospital & research center at oakland is to protect and advance the health and well-being of children through clinical care, teaching and research.

Health
5
Scattergood Behavioral Health Foundation
Health
6
First Nature Foundation Inc Kerul Kassel

At first nature foundation, our mission is to help program participants grow their emotional resilience, self-confidence, and self-awareness, by partnering with nature and our wise herd of horses, who help facilitate these outcomes. at our…

Human Services
7
Ranch Hands Rescue

To provide a sanctuary for people and animals, founded on hope and healing for the long-term recovery of trauma victims, special needs animals, and male survivors of sex trafficking.

Animals
8
Great Results Equine Assisted Therapies
Health
9
Camp Extreme D/B/a Project Extreme

Project extreme provides innovative programming and solutions for teens in -need, their families and communities. project extreme uses a combination of experiential and intellectual learning opportunities to provide the social, educational…

Youth Development
10
Seattle Neighborhood Group

Seattle neighborhood group educates, organizes, and collaborates with residents, businesses, government entities and other organizations to create safe communities through equitable engagement, with a focus on underserved populations.…

Community Improvement
11
Dog Gone Seattle

Dog Gone Seattle is a Washington-based nonprofit organization dedicated to saving homeless dogs in high-kill shelters in Washington and beyond through rescue, foster, and adoption. We are a foster-based organization, and our rescue is 100%…

Animals
12
Impact Horse- Connecting Humans and Horses
Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Albertina Kerr Centers; the most unlike its peers is Rover Rescue. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 11 of the 14 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RICHSTONE FAMILY CENTER: $253,000 · OtherRICHSTONE FAMILY CENTERJIMMY MILLER FOUNDATION: $252,000 · OtherJIMMY MILLER FOUNDATIONDOERNBECHER CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $245,000 · OtherDOERNBECHER CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FOUNDATION+3 more: $13,000 · OtherSOUND EQUINE OPTIONS: $330,000 · AnimalsSOUND EQUINE OPTIONSGROWINGGREAT: $265,000 · Food & NutritionGROWINGGREATFORWARD STRIDE: $112,000 · Human ServicesFORWARD STRIDEALBERTINA KERR CENTERS: $100,000 · Human ServicesALBERTINA KERR…THRIVE IN JOY NICK FAGNANO FOUNDATION: $60,000 · EducationGENERATION U INC: $10,000 · HealthPediatric Brain Tumor Foundation of the United States Inc: $2,000 · HealthHEAL THE BAY: $2,000 · Environment
Other$763,000Animals$330,000Food & Nutrition$265,000Human Services$212,000Education$60,000Health$12,000Environment$2,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSOUND EQUINE OPTIONS: $330,000 over 4y, 18% of budgetGROWINGGREAT: $265,000 over 5y, 16% of budgetFORWARD STRIDE: $112,000 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetALBERTINA KERR CENTERS: $100,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTHRIVE IN JOY NICK FAGNANO FOUNDATION: $60,000 over 4y, 5.1% of budgetGENERATION U INC: $10,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetPediatric Brain Tumor Foundation of the United States Inc: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRover Rescue: $2,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetHEAL THE BAY: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Oregon Jewish Communi…The Oregon Community …Morgan Stanley Global…Network for GoodAmerican Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Oregon Jewish Community FoundationOR13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Oregon Jewish Community Foundation · The Oregon Community Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization David P Watson Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from David P Watson Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 74%
  • Albertina Kerr Centers: 74% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to David P Watson Foundation?

Find your warmest path to David P Watson 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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 14 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on David P Watson’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home