· Private foundation
Flora Family 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.
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 $10k43 grants · $158k
- $10k–50k125 grants · $2.6M
- $50k–250k32 grants · $2.2M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $125,000 |
| ASIAN PEOPLES MOVEMENT INFACT | $125,000 |
| GLOBAL GREENGRANTS FUND | $107,000 |
| POWER FOR ALL | $100,000 |
| ENERGY PEACE PARTNERS | $100,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $100,000 |
| TIDES FOUNDATIONPOWER SHIFT AFRICA | $100,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $100,000 |
| PRIVATE EQUITY STAKEHOLDER PROJECT | $100,000 |
| CORAL REEF ALLIANCE | $70,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $67,500 |
| TIDES FOUNDATIONMARKET FORCES | $65,000 |
| CISAC STANFORD UNIVERSITY | $60,000 |
| SEACOLOGY | $60,000 |
| CALMATTERS | $60,000 |
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 (FY20–24, $1.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 59% 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.
186 repeat relationships — 104 still active in FY2024, 82 since wound down; 60 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; $1.3M 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
- WCWildlife Conservation Society5× · 2020–2024 · $323k · revenue +57%
- CLCHANGE LABS5× · 2020–2024 · $320k · revenue +103%
- SFSAN FRANCISCO BALLET ASSOCIATION5× · 2020–2024 · $310k · revenue +67%
Funded once
- CPCOLORADO PLATEAU FOUNDATIONone grant, 2020 · $125k · revenue -53%
- WOWE OWN IT INCone grant, 2020 · $120k · revenue -30%
- CACLIMATE AND HEALTH RESEARCH NETWORKone grant, 2020 · $100k · revenue -45% · 36% of their budget
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.
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.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
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…
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…
Water.org's goal is to bring safe water and sanitation to the world through access to small, affordable loans.
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…
Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
Educational & charitable. to provide legal and scientific information to public interest attorneys and scientists in numerous countries.
Nuru is a global collective that enables inclusive and sustainable prosperity by identifying communities at the stability tipping point, strengthening rural livelihoods and market systems, and fostering stabilizing connections that repair…
Namati, inc. (namati) is dedicated to putting the law in people's hands. we strive to build a just world, in which every one of us can take part in the decisions and demand accountability from the institutions that affect our lives.…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Center for Family Philanthropy Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Laundry Truck La. 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 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% 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.
223 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. 223 of the 455 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 FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL GREENGRANTS FUND ↗
- Who funds Energy Peace Partners ↗
- Who funds Power for All ↗
- Who funds BROWN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds SEACOLOGY ↗
- Who funds Wildlife Conservation Society ↗
- Who funds CHANGE LABS ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO BALLET ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds THE CORAL REEF ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC ↗
- Who funds THE HOPI FOUNDATION LOMASUMI'NANGWTUKWSIWMANI ↗
- Who funds ECOAMERICA ↗
- Who funds URBAN FOREST CARBON REGISTRY ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE INC ↗
- Who funds ST BONIFACE HAITI FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds The Land Institute ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Boston Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TOLANI LAKE ENTERPRISES INC ↗
- Who funds Groundswell International Inc ↗
- Who funds California Black Womens Health Project ↗
- Who funds TO NIZHONI ANI ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS ↗
- Who funds EARTHRIGHTS INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds LA COCINA ↗
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 William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Tides Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · The Schmidt Family Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Impactassetsinc · The California Wellness Foundation · Marin 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 Flora Family 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.
- Hias Inc — 88% of income from government
- Mercy Corps — 47% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Sustainable Northwest — 5% of income from government
- The Oregon Community Foundation — 2% of income from government
- Bruce Museum Inc — 0% of income from government
- Bridges Middle School — 0% of income from government
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 0% of income from government
- Boston Foundation 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 Flora Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Flora Family 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.