· Private foundation
Davis Family Foundation
Its FY2020 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
Read this first · the figures below need context
99% of Davis Family Foundation’s FY2020 grant dollars went to Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2020 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2019, the last year Davis Family Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 5 organizations, $12k. 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 FY2017–2020.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BREAKTHROUGH AUSTIN | $5,000 |
| GALLATIN VALLEY LAND TRUST | $2,500 |
| CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY | $1,000 |
| EAGLE MOUNT | $1,000 |
| ST ANDREWS SCHOOL | $1,000 |
| THRIVE | $1,000 |
| HRDC | $500 |
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 (FY17–20) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 33% of your 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.
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.
9 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2019, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call). Read against FY2019, 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 FY2020, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $600 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
- BBREAKTHROUGH3× · 2017–2019 · $15k · revenue +199%
- HHAVEN2× · 2017–2018 · $12k · revenue +91%
- GVGALLATIN VALLEY LAND TRUST3× · 2017–2019 · $7k · revenue +234%
Funded once
- TWTHE WILDERNESS SOCIETYgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $3k · revenue +40%
- WQWARRIORS & QUIET WATERS FOUNDATION INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $3k · revenue +236%
- HOHEART OF THE VALLEY INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $1k · revenue +56%
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.
The Gallatin Watershed Council guides collaborative watershed stewardship in the Gallatin Valley for a healthy and productive landscape.
The wyoming outdoor council's mission is to protect wyoming's environment and quality of life now and for future generations.
Flathead land trust is dedicated to the conservation of northwest montana's land and water legacy through voluntary agreements with private land owners. flt's primary program service is private land conservation through voluntary…
Wildearth guardians works to protect and restore the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the american west.
Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…
Protecting our shrub-steppe and connecting people to this vanishing landscape.
Protecting the open land and special places of the roaring fork and middle colorado river valleys for wildlife, agriculture, and community forever.
The minnesota land trust protects and restores minnesota's most vital natural lands in order to provide wildlife habitat, clean water, outdoor experiences and scenic beauty for generations to come.
The mission of the association is to inspire "deeper connection, better understanding, and enduring support for our public lands."
Enhancing sustainable trail experiences in the Methow Valley.
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.
To conserve the unique character of tennessee's natural and historic landscapes and sites for future generations.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Greater Yellowstone Coalition and the most unlike its peers is Earthjustice. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
14 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. 14 of the 18 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 VANGUARD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT PROGRAM ↗
- Who funds BREAKTHROUGH ↗
- Who funds HAVEN ↗
- Who funds GALLATIN VALLEY LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds Eagle Mount ↗
- Who funds THRIVE INC ↗
- Who funds THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds WARRIORS & QUIET WATERS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION ↗
- Who funds CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY OF MONTANA ↗
- Who funds HEART OF THE VALLEY INC ↗
- Who funds ONE VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GALLATIN COUNTY LOVE 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: Gilhousen Family Foundation · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Bozeman Deaconess Health Services · One Valley Community Foundation · The Susan Kay Pederson Foundation · First Security Bank Foundation · Morgan Family Foundation Inc · Yellowstone Club Community Foundation · Town Pump Charitable Foundation · Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation · Otto Bremer Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
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 Davis 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 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.