Skip to content
Ecesis Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Ecesis Foundation

Its FY2022 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$1.2M
Granted FY2022
6
Grants FY2022
2
States reached
$714k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2022.

Philanthropy$1.2MScience & Tech$67kHealth$26kEnvironment$19k
02FY2022 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • Under $10k2 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $32k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $66k
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.1M
$65,932
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SCHWAB CHARITABLE ECESIS FUND$714,202
SCHWAB CHARITABLE ECESIS FUND$336,629
SCHWAB CHARITABLE ECESIS FUND$65,932
SCHWAB CHARITABLE ECESIS FUND$32,448
IDEA WILD$9,280
SCHWAB CHARITABLE ECESIS FUND$305
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Michael J Fox Foundation: $3k → 17%Windhorse Integrative Mental Helth: $3k → 12%Idea Wild: $31k → 11%Davis Phinney Foundation: $3k → 12%Alaska Center Education Fund: $6k → 10%Windhorse Integrative Mental Health: $3k → 12%Idea Wild: $27k → 11%Windhorse Guild: $3k → 12%Alaska Conservation Foundation: $3k → 10%IDEA WILD: $9k → 11%Community Foundation Boulder County: $5k → 12%Alaska Ctr Education Fund: $3k → 10%Trees Water and People: $2k → 11%Windhorse Guild: $3k → 12%Alaska Conservation Foundation: $3k → 10%Trees Water And People: $2k → 11%Boulder Community Foundation: $3k → 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.

8%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$106k · 7 repeat orgs$1.2M to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2022, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
3

Total granted

$106k
$9k

Still filing today

100%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 1% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.1M went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22
EnvironmentHealthScience & TechOther
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

  • IW
    IDEA WILD INC
    3× · 2020–2022 · $67k · revenue +15%
  • TA
    THE ALASKA CENTER EDUCATION FUND
    2× · 2020–2021 · $9k · revenue +6%
  • THE MICHAEL J FOX FOUNDATION FOR PARKINSON'S RESEARCH
    2× · 2020–2021 · $6k · revenue +250%

Funded once

  • BC
    Boulder Community Foundation
    one grant, 2020 · $3k
  • WI
    Windhorse Integrative Mental Helth
    one grant, 2021 · $3k
  • WI
    Windhorse Integrative Mental Health
    one grant, 2020 · $3k
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
The Alaska Center

We engage, empower, and elect alaskans to stand up for our clean air and water, healthy communities, and a strong democracy.

Environment
2
Parkinson's Foundation Inc

Make life better for people with parkinson's disease by improving care and advancing research toward a cure.

Health
3
Wyoming Wildlife Federation

Wyoming wildlife federation delivers leadership in conservation for the state's wildlife, hunters, anglers, and conservationists through policy, education, advocacy, and habitat.

Animals
4
Wildearth Guardians

Wildearth guardians works to protect and restore the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the american west.

Unclassified
5
Western Conservation Foundation

Building leaders to protect the west's land, air, and water.

Environment
6
The Water Research Foundation

The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…

Environment
7
Rocky Mountain Wild

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…

Environment
8
Montana Wildlife Federation

The montana wildlife federation is a statewide conservation organization dedicated to protecting wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public access for outdoor recreation.

Animals
9
Arbor Research Collaborative for Health

Arbor research collaborative for health is committed to improving patient care through research that shapes medical policies and practice. in particular, arbor research conducts health outcomes research on chronic disease and end-stage…

Health
10
Conservation X Labs Inc

To improve the efficacy, speed, cost, sustainability, and scaling of conservation solutions through harnessing exponential technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship to prevent human-induced extinction.

Animals
11
Aquarium of the Pacific Corporation

The aquarium of the pacific's mission is to instill a sense of wonder, respect, and stewardship for the pacific ocean, its inhabitants, and ecosystems.

Animals
12
Aspen Valley Land Trust

Protecting the open land and special places of the roaring fork and middle colorado river valleys for wildlife, agriculture, and community forever.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Alaska Conservation Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Windhorse Guild Inc. 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

8 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. 8 of the 12 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SCHWAB CHARITABLE ECESIS FUND: $1,149,516 · OtherSCHWAB CHARITABLE ECESIS FUND+4 more: $17,090 · OtherIDEA WILD INC: $67,280 · Science & TechTHE ALASKA CENTER EDUCATION FUND: $9,000 · EnvironmentALASKA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $6,000 · EnvironmentTREES WATER AND PEOPLE: $4,000 · EnvironmentTHE MICHAEL J FOX FOUNDATION FOR PARKINSON'S RESEARCH: $6,000 · HealthWINDHORSE GUILD INC: $6,000 · HealthCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION BOULDER COUNTY: $5,000 · Philanthropy
Other$1,166,606Science & Tech$67,280Environment$19,000Health$12,000Philanthropy$5,000

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 budgetIDEA WILD INC: $67,280 over 3y, 5.9% of budgetTHE ALASKA CENTER EDUCATION FUND: $9,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetDAVIS PHINNEY FOUNDATION: $8,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE MICHAEL J FOX FOUNDATION FOR PARKINSON'S RESEARCH: $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWINDHORSE GUILD INC: $6,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetALASKA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $6,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION BOULDER COUNTY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTREES WATER AND PEOPLE: $4,000 over 2y, 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.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO7.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Ecesis Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ecesis Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 Ecesis Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Ecesis 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 12 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Ecesis’ 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