· Private foundation
Falconwood Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k71 grants · $221k
- $10k–50k60 grants · $1.3M
- $50k–250k8 grants · $632k
- $250k+3 grants · $1.2M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WORKMONEY FOUNDATION INC | $525,000 |
| THE BRIGHTWATER FUND | $400,000 |
| THE YEP FOUNDATION | $268,250 |
| GALAXY GIVES (GLOBAL IMPACT) | $120,473 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA | $109,000 |
| ACLU FOUNDATION | $107,500 |
| GOODNATION (ONE FOR DEMOCRACY) | $70,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $60,330 |
| WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY | $60,000 |
| BARD PRISON INITIATIVE | $55,000 |
| MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER | $50,000 |
| GREENPEACE FUND INC | $45,000 |
| NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL | $45,000 |
| NEW YORKERS FOR CHILDREN | $43,750 |
| DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE | $43,000 |
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 US giving — 89% of grant dollars ($15M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 11% that went abroad ($1.8M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY20–24, $1.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 78% 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
Beyond the US — 11% of all-years giving ($1.8M)
2 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 14% of Falconwood Foundation’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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +27% since the first grant, against +11% for the ones you funded once.
158 repeat relationships — 110 still active in FY2024, 48 since wound down; 30 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $982k 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
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC5× · 2020–2024 · $775k · revenue +65%
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC5× · 2020–2024 · $552k · revenue +40%
BARD COLLEGE5× · 2020–2024 · $483k · revenue +151%
Funded once
- GGOODNATIONone grant, 2020 · $851k
- TEThe Eisenhower Project Incone grant, 2020 · $176k · revenue -100% · 30% of their budget
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2020 · $111k
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.
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
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.
The peterson institute for international economics (piie) is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening prosperity and human welfare in the global economy through expert analysis and practical…
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…
The npr foundation ("foundation") is organized and operated exclusively for the benefit of its sole supported organization, national public radio, inc. ("npr inc."). the foundation supports npr inc. through various activities such as…
New york school of interior design provides the most innovative, immersive, and transformative interior design education in the world, demonstrating the impact of professionally designed interiors on the health, happiness, and well-being…
The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
National public radio, inc. ("npr") works collaboratively with member public radio station licensees ("member stations") to create a more informed public, one that is challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of…
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is People Power Initiatives Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Gere Foundation. 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 28 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% 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.
187 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. 187 of the 261 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 The Brightwater Fund ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds WORKMONEY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds BARD COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds KHAN ACADEMY INC ↗
- Who funds The Eisenhower Project Inc ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds THE MARSHALL PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds NEW YORKERS FOR CHILDREN INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds MEDICAL DEBT RESOLUTION INC ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds The Trustees of Princeton University ↗
- Who funds THE BAIL PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds FOODCORPS INC ↗
- Who funds GREENPEACE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds PORT CHESTER CARVER CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THE KEEWAYDIN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc ↗
- Who funds GOOD PLUS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI ↗
- Who funds NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC FUND INC ↗
- Who funds ALLEN INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP ↗
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: Jewish Communal Fund · Triangle Community Foundation Inc · The Bessemer Giving Fund · The Ford Foundation · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · The New York Community Trust · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund · Analog Devices Foundation · The Jm Kaplan Fund Inc · Silicon Valley Community 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 Falconwood 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.
- Lund Family Center Inc — 34% of income from government
- Foodcorps Inc — 21% of income from government
- Freedom Reads Inc — 12% of income from government
- Sea Education Association Inc — 12% of income from government
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 11% of income from government
- Community Foundation for Nantucket Inc — 10% of income from government
- Nantucket Maria Mitchell Association in — 9% of income from government
- Northeastern University — 7% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- The Shriners' Hospital for Children — 6% of income from government
- Connecticut Foodshare Inc — 5% of income from government
- Birdscaribbean — 4% of income from government
- Shatterproof a Nonprofit Corporation — 2% 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 Falconwood Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Falconwood 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.