Skip to content
Dry Creek Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Dry Creek 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.

$3.7M
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$2.6M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Animals$9.6MEnvironment$2.3MInternational$260kHealth$100kCivil Rights$50kEducation$10kOther$0
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $45k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $767k
  • $250k+2 grants · $2.9M
$130,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$34M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK$2,615,511
MALIASILI INITIATIVES INC$250,000
CONSERVATION STRATEGY FUND$150,000
ELAKHA ALLIANCE$148,000
YELLOWSTONE FOREVER$130,000
AFRICAN LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION$110,000
MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION$100,000
APIS ARBOREA$79,365
AFRICAN COMMUNITY AND CONSERVATION FOUNDATION$50,000
SEA OTTER SAVVY$45,000
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 (FY20–21, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%SCOPA HAS A DREAM INC: $25k → 9%SCOPA HAS A DREAM INC: $25k → 9%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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$12M · 8 repeat orgs$683k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
5

Total granted

$12M
$340k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+56%
+180%

Still filing today

88%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $343k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentAnimalsHuman ServicesEducationInternationalOther
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

  • WC
    WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC
    7× · 2018–2024 · $9.2M · revenue +296%
  • MI
    MALIASILI INITIATIVES INC
    4× · 2020–2024 · $1.2M · revenue +80%
  • CS
    CONSERVATION STRATEGY FUND
    5× · 2020–2024 · $495k · revenue +56%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2019 · $150k
  • TC
    TRT CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2019 · $100k
  • PT
    Proyecto Titi Incgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +30% · 40% of their budget
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
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
2
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
3
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
4
African Wildlife Foundation Inc

Awf's mission is to ensure wildlife and wild lands thrive in modern africa. we work to equip african governments, institutions, business, and communities with the tools, insights, and support they need to define, own, and realize a…

Animals
5
Ocean Alliance Project

Protecting and promoting the marine biodiversity of Hawai'i through coral restoration, ecological monitoring, regenerative tourism, and cultural integration

Science & Tech
6
Endangered Species International

Endangered Species International is strongly committed to reversing the trend of human-induced species extinction, saving endangered animals, and preserving wild places.

Animals
7
Galapagos Whale Shark Project
—
8
Wild Earth Allies Inc

Our mission is to protect vital areas of our natural world for the benefit of wildlife, habitats, and people by inspiring collaborative action. Our vision is a world where wildlife and people flourish in healthy ecosystems that sustain us…

Environment
9
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
10
The Earth Species Project

The Earth Species Project (ESP) develops frontier AI to amplify the voices of nature, creating new pathways for the transformation of our systemsand ourselves. We envision a relationship with the rest of nature that allows the diversity of…

—
11
Alaska Wildlife Alliance

Support ecosystem-based wildlife management by increasing public awareness of wildlife issues, responding to information requests, advocating for science-based wildlife habitat management through proposal and comment submissions, and…

Environment
12
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildlife Conservation Network Inc; the most unlike its peers is Apis Arborea. 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

13 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. 13 of the 17 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
8/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $9,235,231 · AnimalsWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC+2 more: $145,000 · AnimalsMALIASILI INITIATIVES INC: $1,175,000 · EnvironmentMALIASILI INITIATIVES …CONSERVATION STRATEGY FUND: $495,000 · EnvironmentCONSERVATION STRATEGY …YELLOWSTONE FOREVER: $369,200 · EnvironmentYELLOWSTONE FOREVERApis Arborea: $169,365 · EnvironmentApis ArboreaElakha Alliance: $148,000 · EnvironmentElakha Alliance+2 more: $100,000 · EnvironmentIndividual grant recipient: $150,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $135,000 · OtherTRT CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $100,000 · Other+1 more: $10,000 · OtherAFRICAN LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION: $260,000 · EducationSCOPA HAS A DREAM INC DBA CORAZON HEALDSBURG: $50,000 · Human ServicesWILD PHILANTHROPY INC: $30,000 · International
Animals$9,380,231Environment$2,456,565Other$395,000Education$260,000Human Services$50,000International$30,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $9,235,231 over 7y, 4.7% of budgetMALIASILI INITIATIVES INC: $1,175,000 over 4y, 10% of budgetCONSERVATION STRATEGY FUND: $495,000 over 5y, 7.1% of budgetYELLOWSTONE FOREVER: $369,200 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetAFRICAN LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION: $260,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetApis Arborea: $169,365 over 2y, 40% of budgetElakha Alliance: $148,000 over 1y, 29% of budgetMONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION: $100,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetProyecto Titi Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 40% of budgetAFRICAN COMMUNITY AND CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetSCOPA HAS A DREAM INC DBA CORAZON HEALDSBURG: $50,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetSEA OTTER SAVVY: $45,000 over 1y, 21% of budgetWILD PHILANTHROPY INC: $30,000 over 1y, 16% 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.

National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA8.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Dry Creek Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Dry Creek Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 10%
  • Elakha Alliance: 10% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
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 Dry Creek Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Dry Creek 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 17 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Dry Creek’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