Skip to content

· Private foundation

Grassy Creek Foundation

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.

$1.3M
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$1.0M
Largest
01What it funds
0193% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Employment$5.2MAnimals$1.2MEnvironment$786kPhilanthropy$221kInternational$165kArts & Culture$140kEducation$106kPublic Safety & Disaster$100kOther$0
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $35k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $300k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.0M
$50,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$20M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$1,005,220
NORTH ATLANTIC SALMON FUND$150,000
UNC ARTS & SCIENCES FOUNDATION$100,000
DREAM NYC (HARLEM RBI INC)$50,000
ATLANTIC SALMON FEDERATION (ASF)$25,000
BONEFISH & TARPON TRUST (BTT)$10,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%GOOD SPORTS INC: $10k → 7%NEWPORT FESTIVALS FOUNDATION INC: $25k → 10%NORTH ATLANTIC SALMON FUND: $74k → 7%NATURE CONSERVANCY (MASHOMACK PRESERVE): $10k → 7%DREAM NYC (HARLEM RBI INC): $50k → 17%NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $100k → 14%OCEANAID360: $170k → 12%ODA FOUNDATION: $50k → 13%NORTH ATLANTIC SALMON FUND: $150k → 14%BONEFISH & TARPON TRUST (BTT): $10k → 15%WILD SALMON CENTER: $100k → 12%COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF GREATER CHATTANOOGA: $104k → 12%UNC GOANYWHERE: $1.3M → 13%HIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION ADVOCATES: $15k → 10%ODA FOUNDATION: $20k → 10%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $46k → 7%ATLANTIC SALMON FEDERATION (US) INC: $135k → 16%NATIONAL FISH & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NFWF): $100k → 14%OCEANAID360: $108k → 12%ODA FOUNDATION: $31k → 13%BONEFISH & TARPON TRUST (BTT): $10k → 15%WILD SALMON CENTER: $100k → 12%COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF GREATER CHATTANOOGA: $102k → 12%UNC GOANYWHERE: $1.0M → 13%ATLANTIC SALMON FEDERATION (ASF): $40k → 16%NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $100k → 14%OCEANAID360: $72k → 12%WILD SALMON CENTER: $20k → 12%UNC GOANYWHERE: $635k → 13%ATLANTIC SALMON FEDERATION (ASF): $25k → 16%NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NFWF): $100k → 14%OCEANAID360: $55k → 12%UNC GOANYWHERE: $613k → 13%ATLANTIC SALMON FEDERATION (ASF): $15k → 16%NATIONAL FISH & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NFWF): $100k → 14%UNC GOANYWHERE: $602k → 13%ATLANTIC SALMON FEDERATION (ASF): $15k → 16%NATIONAL FISH & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NFWF): $100k → 14%UNC COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES: $257k → 13%ATLANTIC SALMON FEDERATION: $15k → 16%WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN: $100k → 14%UNC ARTS & SCIENCES FOUNDATION: $100k → 13%ATLANTIC SALMON FEDERATION (ASF): $15k → 16%UNC: $96k → 13%ATLANTIC SALMON FEDERATION (ASF): $15k → 16%UNC GLOBAL LEADERSHIP COUNCIL: $60k → 13%UNC COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES: $20k → 13%UNC GOANYWHERE: $735k → 13%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

ME
ID
NY
MA
OR
NJ
CT
CA
CO
VA
TN
NC
DC
LA
FL
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
04

Where the work is directed

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

About 39% of Grassy Creek Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Grassy Creek Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 54% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$7.0M · 13 repeat orgs$804k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +131% since the first grant, against +12% for those funded once.

13 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
15

Total granted

$7.0M
$654k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+131%
+12%

Still filing today

54%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $150k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsArts & CultureInternationalEnvironmentYouth DevelopmentOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • NF
    NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION
    6× · 2017–2022 · $600k · revenue +62%
  • OA
    OCEAN AID 360 INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $404k · revenue +131% · 62% of their budget
  • Atlantic Salmon Federation (US) Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $285k · revenue +375%

Funded once

  • UC
    UNC COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
    one grant, 2019 · $277k
  • WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC
    one grant, 2020 · $100k · revenue +21%
  • U
    UNC
    one grant, 2018 · $96k
How this is measured

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

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
2
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Foundation

To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.

Animals
3
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
4
Ocean Conservancy

Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.

Environment
5
Wildcoast

The mission of wildcoast is to conserve coastal and marine ecosystems and address climate change through natural solutions. our staff is dedicated to conserving threatened and endangered coastlines and wildlife in california and mexico.…

Environment
6
Oceana Inc

To advocate for policy changes by governments and corporations in order to preserve ocean life and return the oceans to their former abundance.

Environment
7
The Water Research Foundation

The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…

Environment
8
Conservation Farms & Ranches

Preserving and enhancing the habitat of wildlife, such as sandhill cranes, waterfowl, raptors, which habitat expenses are supported by agricultural activities.

Housing & Shelter
9
Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council

The Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council is a local nonprofit organization that strives to enhance and restore habitat for fish and wildlife our community and for future generations. Our Board of Directors consists of seven members with…

Environment
10
Wildlife Conservation Network Inc

Connect conservationists and supporters, deploy resources to the field, provide conservationists with tools and support they need to succeed.

Animals
11
The Ocean Foundation

As the only community foundation for the ocean, The Ocean Foundation's 501(c)(3) mission is to improve global ocean health, climate resilience, and the blue economy. We create partnerships to connect people in the communities in which we…

Environment
12
American Flood Coalition Inc

To drive transformational adaptation to protect communities across the country from higher seas, stronger storms, and more frequent flooding.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Oda Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

15 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 15 of the 32 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
11/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $4,909,044 · OtherIndividual grant recipientUNC COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES: $277,460 · Other+17 more: $571,873 · Other+17 moreNATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $600,000 · AnimalsNATIONAL FISH AND W…Atlantic Salmon Federation (US) Inc: $285,000 · AnimalsAtlantic Salmon Fed…NORTH ATLANTIC SALMON FUND: $274,000 · AnimalsNORTH ATLANTIC SALM…WILD SALMON CENTER: $240,000 · AnimalsWILD SALMON CENTEROCEAN AID 360 INC: $404,394 · Environment+1 more: $11,500 · EnvironmentThe Community Foundation of Greater Chattanooga Inc: $206,000 · PhilanthropyODA FOUNDATION: $100,000 · InternationalWORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $100,000 · InternationalNEWPORT FESTIVALS FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 · Arts & CultureCRESTED BUTTE MOUNTAIN EDUCATIONAL RADIO: $5,000 · Arts & CultureFRIENDS OF WWOZ INC: $5,000 · Arts & CultureGOOD SPORTS INC: $10,000 · Youth Development
Other$5,758,377Animals$1,399,000Environment$415,894Philanthropy$206,000International$200,000Arts & Culture$35,000Youth Development$10,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $600,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetOCEAN AID 360 INC: $404,394 over 4y, 62% of budgetAtlantic Salmon Federation (US) Inc: $285,000 over 9y, 3.5% of budgetNORTH ATLANTIC SALMON FUND: $274,000 over 3y, 25% of budgetWILD SALMON CENTER: $240,000 over 5y, 1.2% of budgetThe Community Foundation of Greater Chattanooga Inc: $206,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetODA FOUNDATION: $100,000 over 4y, 23% of budgetWORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $100,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $45,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNEWPORT FESTIVALS FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetHIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION ADVOCATES: $15,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetTHE EVERGLADES FOUNDATION INC: $11,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetGOOD SPORTS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF WWOZ INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds OCEAN AID 360 INC ↗
  • Who funds Atlantic Salmon Federation (US) Inc ↗
  • Who funds NORTH ATLANTIC SALMON FUND ↗
  • Who funds WILD SALMON CENTER ↗
  • Who funds The Community Foundation of Greater Chattanooga Inc ↗
  • Who funds ODA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
  • Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds NEWPORT FESTIVALS FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds HIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION ADVOCATES ↗
  • Who funds THE EVERGLADES FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds GOOD SPORTS INC ↗
  • Who funds CRESTED BUTTE MOUNTAIN EDUCATIONAL RADIO ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF WWOZ INC ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Pfizer Foundation IncNY10.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Grassy Creek Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Grassy Creek Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 50%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 49%
  • Wild Salmon Center: 49% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
5get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Grassy Creek Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Grassy Creek 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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 32 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its 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.

Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Grassy Creek’s filings →

More from the funding graph