· Private foundation
Esjay Foundation Inc
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 $10k54 grants · $82k
- $10k–50k10 grants · $168k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| EAGLE VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $40,350 |
| SOLIDAIRE | $25,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD FOUNDATION OF AMERICA | $20,000 |
| UNITED WAY OF WELD COUNTY | $15,000 |
| ACLU FOUNDATION | $14,000 |
| DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS | $12,000 |
| WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN | $11,500 |
| SAHUARITA FOOD BANK | $10,000 |
| NATIONAL RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL | $10,000 |
| ADL | $10,000 |
| ACTBLUE - EVERYTOWN SUPPORT FUNDACTBLUE CHARITIES | $6,606 |
| NATIONAL DOMESTIC WORKERS ALLIANCE | $6,500 |
| SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER | $5,100 |
| OXFAM AMERICA | $5,000 |
| NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS | $4,000 |
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 (FY20–25, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 67% 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 +23% since the first grant, against +10% for the ones you funded once.
98 repeat relationships — 46 still active in FY2025, 52 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, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $29k 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
UNITED WAY OF WELD COUNTY INC8× · 2017–2025 · $105k · revenue +68%
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC9× · 2017–2025 · $79k · revenue +12%
WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC6× · 2020–2025 · $73k · revenue +21%
Funded once
- UWUNITED WAY OF WELD COUNTYone grant, 2021 · $15k
- CCCITIZENS CLIMATE EDUCATION CORPone grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue -16%
- NNRDCone grant, 2021 · $8k
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 union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
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.
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…
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
To drive transformational adaptation to protect communities across the country from higher seas, stronger storms, and more frequent flooding.
Water.org's goal is to bring safe water and sanitation to the world through access to small, affordable loans.
Preservation of civil liberties through litigation and public education.
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…
Cdp north america, inc. 's ("cdp-na") vision for the future is a thriving economy that works for people and planet in the long term. we focus investors and companies on taking urgent action to build a truly sustainable economy by measuring…
To investigate, research, write, publish, present conferences and teach with respect to global, regional, transboundary, and comparative environmental issues and to make the findings from such activities available to the general public; to…
American gas association's (the association) mission is to develop and advocate for informed, innovative, and durable policy that fulfills our nation's energy needs, environmental aspirations and economic potential. we are committed to…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Colorado Gives Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Lava Mae. 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 35 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 6% 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.
113 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. 113 of the 213 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 EAGLE VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY OF WELD COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds Feeding America ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds National Domestic Workers Alliance Inc ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds OXFAM-AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds MOUNTAIN VALLEY HORSE RESCUE ↗
- Who funds TNDC SUPPORTING FUND ↗
- Who funds HONOR THE EARTH ↗
- Who funds ROUNDUP RIVER RANCH ↗
- Who funds Save The Children Federation Inc ↗
- Who funds NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC FUND INC ↗
- Who funds SAHUARITA FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds CITIZENS CLIMATE EDUCATION CORP ↗
- Who funds ACLU FOUNDATION OF COLORADO INC ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ↗
- Who funds REFUGEE & IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR EDUCATION & LEGAL SERVICES ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY RADIO FOR NORTHERN COLORADO ↗
- Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF ↗
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 Francisco Foundation · Tides Foundation · The James Irvine Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Amg Charitable Gift Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Colorado Gives Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · The Yelp Foundation · The San Diego Foundation · The Denver Foundation · Xcel Energy 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 Esjay Foundation Inc 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.
- Hias Inc — 88% of income from government
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- Babson College — 3% of income from government
- Fund for Educational Excellence Inc — 1% of income from government
- Sandy Hook Promise Foundation — 0% of income from government
- Oxfam-America 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 Esjay Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Esjay Foundation Inc 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.