· Private foundation
Dr Bronners Family 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $5k
- $10k–50k16 grants · $340k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $225k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Cohere USA | $100,000 |
| Myriad USA Inc | $75,000 |
| UWEAST | $50,000 |
| National Korean American Service an | $25,000 |
| Al Otro Lado Inc | $25,000 |
| Hatian Bridge Alliance | $25,000 |
| Interfaith Movement for Human Integ | $25,000 |
| Players Philanthropy Fund | $25,000 |
| Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice | $25,000 |
| The New York Immigration Coalition | $25,000 |
| Tipey Joa Native Warriors | $25,000 |
| Innovation Law Lab | $25,000 |
| Worker's Defense Project | $25,000 |
| Southeast Immigrant Rights Network | $25,000 |
| Chinese Progressive Association | $25,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $1.4M) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 74% 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 +22% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
97 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2025, 94 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 15% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $400k 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
- URUS RIGHT TO KNOW7× · 2017–2024 · $548k · revenue +40% · 35% of their budget
- CTCOMMISSION TO EVERY NATION7× · 2017–2024 · $440k · revenue +27%
- FOFRIENDS OF THE EARTH4× · 2017–2021 · $338k · revenue +63%
Funded once
- PSPsychedelic Science Funders Collaboone grant, 2022 · $100k
- TPThe Pachamama Allianceone grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue -4%
- EMEnthea - Multidisciplinary Assocone grant, 2021 · $100k
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.
Justice Action Center JAC pilots an innovative model that advances the rights of immigrant communities by connecting cutting-edge impact litigation and compelling narrative and communications content. The purpose of JAC is to advance the…
Our mission is to reflect Gods intent for humanity, to live as a reconciled and and restored community. We stand in solidarity with immigrants by providing high quality, affordable immigration legal services and advocating for just…
Pangea's mission is to provide deportation defense services, advocate for policy change, and provide education and legal empowerment for our immigrant communities.
The Guernica Centre for International Justice represents the interests of victims in national and international legal proceedings, putting in place transnational accountability strategies that seek to maximize the protection of victims'…
To create transnational access to legal assistance for victims of labour exploitation and human trafficking so that they can seek rightful compensation, even after returning home.
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
Coalicion por Venezuela Inc is a non-profit federation that unities civil society organizations dedicated to defending and promoting promote human rights, democratic values, and the social and cultural freedoms of Venezuelans and other…
LexCollective is a not-for-profit organization that addresses the most extreme forms of social, racial, economic, and environmental injustices around the world, such as mass atrocities, human trafficking, environmental destruction, and…
Ccij utilizes coordination, advocacy, and legal services to fight for the liberationof immigrants in detention in california. we seek to empower immigrants in detentionand their communities through technical assistance, education, and…
Asylee Women Enterprise (AWE), journeys with asylum seekers and other forced migrants as they navigate the immigration legal process, begin to heal from past trauma, and rebuild their lives in Baltimore.
Women in Migration Network (WIMN), an international non-governmental organization, identifies and promotes human rights-based and feminist global migration policies. We lift up and support the experiences, voices and agency of all women in…
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild Inc and the most unlike its peers is Bring Me a Book St Louis. 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 20 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) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% 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.
169 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 169 of the 272 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 US RIGHT TO KNOW ↗
- Who funds COMMISSION TO EVERY NATION ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE EARTH ↗
- Who funds WELLSPRING INC ↗
- Who funds Fraternity House Inc ↗
- Who funds HARVESTNET INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds EQUALITY ALLIANCE OF SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds FOOD & WATER WATCH ↗
- Who funds SAMARITAN'S PURSE ↗
- Who funds THE AJA PROJECT ↗
- Who funds TABITHAS HEART ↗
- Who funds The Pachamama Alliance ↗
- Who funds Veterans for All Voters ↗
- Who funds MYRIAD USA INC ↗
- Who funds COHERE USA INC ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Boys to Men Mentoring Network Inc ↗
- Who funds CREATIVE EXCHANGES INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds Gender Illumination ↗
- Who funds CHAKANA MEDIA INC ↗
- Who funds Casa Cornelia Legal Services ↗
- Who funds SDG IMPACT FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Feeding The Soul Foundation ↗
- Who funds CHURCH WORLD SERVICE 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: The San Diego Foundation · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Borealis Philanthropy · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Rsf Social Finance Inc · Proteus Fund Inc · Fwdus Education Fund Inc · Impactassetsinc · Price Philanthropies Foundation · The Conrad Prebys Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of San Diego · St Louis Community Foundation 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 Dr Bronners 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.
- Portland Institute for Contemporary Art — 5% of income from government
- Migrant Justice Inc — 0% of income from government
- Food for the Poor 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Dr Bronners Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Dr Bronners Family 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.