Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy

The GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVANCY (parks conservancy) serves as the nonprofit partner of the national park service, collaborating with the presidio trust, partners, donors, and the community to support the golden gate national recreation area(cont.

$7.3M
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$7.2M
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172024.

Recreation & Sports$85MArts & Culture$23MEnvironment$1.6MPublic Benefit$150kAnimals$31k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $11k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $112k
  • $250k+1 grant · $7.2M
$112,147
Median grant
2
States reached
$83M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE$7,220,991
THE PRESIDIO TRUST$112,147
REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS$11,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%PHILANTHROPI CHARITABLE: $150k → 22%SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $20k → 7%LEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOE: $115k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKLEY FOUNDATION: $28k → 10%THE PRESIDIO TRUST: $31.9M → 10%REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $11k → 16%NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $7.2M → 14%THE STEWARDSHIP NETWORK: $959k → 14%THE PRESIDIO TRUST: $29.0M → 10%REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $11k → 16%NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $5.1M → 14%THE STEWARDSHIP NETWORK: $320k → 14%THE PRESIDIO TRUST: $15.0M → 10%REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $9k → 16%National Park Service: $4.2M → 14%THE PRESIDIO TRUST: $9.2M → 10%NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $2.8M → 14%THE PRESIDIO TRUST: $112k → 10%NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $1.7M → 14%NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $931k → 14%NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $696k → 14%NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $418k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

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.

04

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 10% of Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy’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.

Golden Gate National Parks Conservancylessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$110M · 5 repeat orgs$197k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
4

Total granted

$110M
$197k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+35%
+43%

Still filing today

40%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationEnvironmentReligionOther

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

  • PT
    PRESIDIO TR
    5× · 2020–2024 · $85M
  • NP
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
    8× · 2017–2024 · $23M
  • TS
    The Stewardship Network
    2× · 2021–2022 · $1.3M · revenue -51% · 52% of their budget

Funded once

  • LT
    LEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOEgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $115k · revenue +43%
  • MO
    MARIN OPEN SPACE TRUSTgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $34k · revenue +100% · 53% of their budget
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $28k · revenue -36%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field
05the grantee network

6 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 6 of the 10 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
3/6
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

PRESIDIO TR — $85,241,061 · OtherPRESIDIO TRNATIONAL PARK SERVICE — $23,020,665 · OtherNATIONAL PARK SERVICE+2 more — $51,000 · OtherThe Stewardship Network — $1,279,308 · Environment+1 more — $34,000 · EnvironmentTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION — $145,500 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION — $28,000 · EducationPHILANTHROPI CHARITABLE — $150,000 · Public BenefitLEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOE — $115,000 · Religion
Other$108,312,726Environment$1,313,308Education$173,500Public Benefit$150,000Religion$115,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetThe Stewardship Network — $1,279,308 over 2y, 52% of budgetPHILANTHROPI CHARITABLE — $150,000 over 1y, 8.6% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION — $145,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetLEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOE — $115,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetMARIN OPEN SPACE TRUST — $34,000 over 1y, 53% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION — $28,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
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 Stewardship Network
  • Who funds PHILANTHROPI CHARITABLE
  • Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION
  • Who funds LEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOE
  • Who funds MARIN OPEN SPACE TRUST
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION

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.

Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO5.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%your share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 10 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph