· Private foundation
Green South Foundation Inc
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 FY2021–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $1k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $231k
- $50k–250k17 grants · $1.6M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS | $230,000 |
| CATAWBA COLLEGE | $194,639 |
| AMERICAN CONSERVATION COALITION | $130,000 |
| OCMULGEE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE INITIATIVE | $120,000 |
| OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE LAND TRUST | $100,000 |
| MOUNTAINTRUE | $100,000 |
| POTENTIAL ENERGY COALITION | $100,000 |
| HACKS HACKERS | $100,000 |
| GRIST | $80,000 |
| JOURNALISM FUNDING PARTNERS | $62,500 |
| RE WILD | $60,000 |
| JOURNALISM FUNDING PARTNERS | $59,211 |
| JOURNALISM FUNDING PARTNERS | $55,000 |
| JOURNALISM FUNDING PARTNERS | $50,000 |
| THE CONSESRVATION FUND | $50,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 86% of your 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 +47% since the first grant, against +5% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 9 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, 59% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $749k 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
Journalism Funding Partners3× · 2022–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +102%- CCCATAWBA COLLEGE2× · 2023–2024 · $352k · revenue +215%
- FFFUND FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT2× · 2022–2023 · $300k · revenue +47%
Funded once
CREATIVE VISIONS FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $230k · revenue +40%- RMRESOURCE MEDIAone grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue -34%
- GTGA TECH FOUNDATIONone grant, 2021 · $40k
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 launch breakthrough climate mitigation efforts by identifying, supporting, and unleashing innovative leaders with transformative strategies.
The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.
To develop and promote a carbon dividends framework - based on carbon fees whose revenues are rebated to citizens through dividends - as the most cost-effective, equitable, and politically viable climate solution.
E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
Cgc operates as a nonprofit financial institution that invests directly and through partners to transform financial markets by using public and private investing to accelerate the deployment of projects that strengthen the grid, reduce…
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…
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.
To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.
Rogue Climate's mission is to empower Southern Oregon communities most impacted by climate change including low-income, rural, youth, seniors & communities of color, to win climate justice by organizing for clean energy, sustainable jobs &…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Resource Media and the most unlike its peers is Chapel & York Us Foundation Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 23 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 1% 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.
27 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. 27 of the 31 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
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 Journalism Funding Partners ↗
- Who funds CATAWBA COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds Grist Magazine Inc ↗
- Who funds FUND FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT ↗
- Who funds HACKS HACKERS ↗
- Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
- Who funds CREATIVE VISIONS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC ↗
- Who funds DEPLOYUS INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CONSERVATION COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds Potential Energy Coalition Inc ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY RADIO FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds OCMULGEE NATIONAL PARK & PRESERVE INITIATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds MountainTrue ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds REWILD ↗
- Who funds RESOURCE MEDIA ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC ↗
- Who funds PULITZER CENTER ON CRISIS REPORTING ↗
- Who funds SOUTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds CHAPEL & YORK US FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC Biodiversity Funders Grp ↗
- Who funds CLIMATE RIDE INC ↗
- Who funds PACOIMA BEAUTIFUL ↗
- Who funds PROTECT OUR WINTERS ↗
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 Richards Foundation · United States Energy Foundation · The Hartfield Fdn Inc 0739-80-42 · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · The Argosy Foundation · Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Inc · Rockefeller Brothers Fund Inc · Resources Legacy Fund · Foundation to Promote Open Society · Charles Stewart Mott 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 Green South 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.
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 Green South Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Green South 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.