· Private foundation
Erik E and Edith H Bergstrom Foundation A Charitable Trust
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 clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k4 grants · $19k
- $10k–50k13 grants · $344k
- $50k–250k16 grants · $2.4M
- $250k+17 grants · $8.3M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WOMENS INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR GUATEMALAN SOLUTI | $936,876 |
| PHILANTHROPIC VENTURES FOUNDATION | $902,598 |
| IPPF - FOS FEMINISTA | $660,000 |
| IPPF - FOS FEMINISTA | $591,855 |
| MSI US | $589,728 |
| MSI US | $579,910 |
| ONE WORLD CHILDRENS FUND | $565,315 |
| IPAS | $534,406 |
| IPPF - FOS FEMINISTA | $492,379 |
| MSI US | $484,984 |
| DKT INTERNATIONAL INC | $367,490 |
| PHILANTHROPIC VENTURES FOUNDATION | $313,079 |
| IPPF - FOS FEMINISTA | $271,272 |
| IPPF - FOS FEMINISTA | $268,525 |
| IPPF - FOS FEMINISTA | $255,552 |
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 (FY17–19, $770k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 47% of Erik E and Edith H Bergstrom Foundation A Charitable Trust’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 24% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 3% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
38 repeat relationships — 18 still active in FY2025, 20 since wound down; 2 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, 61% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3.6M 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
INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION WESTERN HEMISPHERE REGION3× · 2022–2024 · $7.4M · revenue +50%- WIWOMENS INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR GUATEMALAN SOLUTIONS INC3× · 2023–2025 · $2.1M · revenue +27% · 30% of their budget
- BOBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WHITMAN COLLEGE9× · 2017–2025 · $245k · revenue +87%
Funded once
- IIPFFone grant, 2017 · $885k
- OWONE WORLD CHILDREN'S FUNDone grant, 2019 · $753k
- MMSIone grant, 2017 · $734k
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.
Our mission is to improve the performance of health workers and strengthen the systems in which they work.
To develop hiv prevention products and other sexual and reproductive health technologies for women, and to make them available and accessible where they are urgently needed.
The institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the united states and globally.
A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.
We generate ideas, produce evidence, and design solutions to improve the lives of underserved populations around the world. we take a multidisciplinary, intergenerational, life-cycle approach that contributes to (see schedule o)four global…
To advance the planned parenthood mission internationally, including support for the provision and protection of sexual and reproductive health services and rights, and ensuring that all people have access to reproductive and sexual…
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
To ensure broad public access to sexual and reproductive health care through direct service, education and advocacy.
Pai advances evidence, policies and programs to enable women, youth and at-risk communities to access sexual and reproductive health as core to health equity, climate resilience, economic well-being and gender equality.
See schedule o for a more detailed description of ide's mission statement and achievements.
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.
Parliamentarians for global action (pga) is a non-partisan ngo network of legislators from all regions of the world acting in their individual capacity to advocate for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law; peace and human security;…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ipas and the most unlike its peers is Imperial County Historical Society. 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 44 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
34 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. 34 of the 50 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 MSI US ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION WESTERN HEMISPHERE REGION ↗
- Who funds PHILANTHROPIC VENTURES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds One World Childrens Fund ↗
- Who funds IPAS ↗
- Who funds PATHFINDER INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds DKT INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds WOMENS INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR GUATEMALAN SOLUTIONS INC ↗
- Who funds POPULATION MEDIA CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds WITH ANGEL WINGS ↗
- Who funds MYRIAD USA INC ↗
- Who funds BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WHITMAN COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds Solar Cookers International ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WORLD LEARNING INC ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds SHINE TOGETHER INC ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL CONSERVATION ↗
- Who funds IMPERIAL COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds WALLOWA LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds BUTLER INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN ART ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GREATER WASHINGTON AND NORTH IDAHO ↗
- Who funds NO SCALPEL VASECTOMY INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds PRO MUJER INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION - WORLDWIDE INC ↗
- Who funds PALM SPRINGS ART MUSEUM ↗
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: Boston Foundation Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Foundation for the Carolinas · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · Give Lively Foundation Inc · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · EcoTrust · The Richard R Howe Foundation · Segal Family Foundation Inc · 128 Collective Foundation · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · American Endowment Foundation
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 Erik E and Edith H Bergstrom Foundation A Charitable Trust 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.
- World Learning Inc — 39% of income from government
- Wallowa Land Trust — 3% 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 Erik E and Edith H Bergstrom Foundation A Charitable Trust?
Find your warmest path to Erik E and Edith H Bergstrom Foundation A Charitable Trust 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.