Skip to content
Gwydion Fund for Wild Nature at a glance

· Private foundation

Gwydion Fund for Wild Nature

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.

$456k
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$213k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Arts & Culture$1.1MEnvironment$556kHealth$208kAnimals$64kEducation$58kCivil Rights$37kYouth Development$22kCommunity Improvement$8kOther$0
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k5 grants · $23k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $45k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $388k
$20,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$3.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATURAL HISTORY INSTITUTE$212,500
HATCH$125,000
THE PAD PROJECT$50,000
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC$25,000
PRESCOTT FILM SOCIETY$20,000
WOLF CONSERVATION CENTER$5,000
GLOBAL GREENGRANTS FUND$5,000
COLORADO PLATEAU FOUNDATION$5,000
LAUNCH PAD TEEN CENTER$5,000
WILDERNESS WATCH$3,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY22–23, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%GREAT OLD BROADS FOR WILDERNESS: $3k → 12%GREAT OLD BROADS FOR WILDERNESS: $3k → 12%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

AK
VT
MT
MN
NY
MA
NV
PA
CT
CA
UT
CO
VA
MD
AZ
NM
DC
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 48 repeat orgs$246k to everyone else

48 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2024, 41 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

48
23

Total granted

$2.0M
$101k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+16%
+18%

Still filing today

88%
74%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $145k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentAnimalsArts & CultureInternationalCivil RightsCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • NH
    Natural History Institute
    4× · 2020–2024 · $900k · revenue +3% · 68% of their budget
  • TP
    The Pad Project
    3× · 2022–2024 · $158k · revenue +15%
  • GI
    GREENPEACE INC
    4× · 2020–2023 · $55k · revenue +10%

Funded once

  • HP
    HATCH PLASTIC PREVENTION
    one grant, 2020 · $15k
  • AW
    ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE
    one grant, 2020 · $13k · revenue -22%
  • SA
    SOUTHEAST ALASKA PRESERVATION COUNCIL
    one grant, 2020 · $13k
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
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
2
Conservation International Foundation

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

Environment
3
Resource Renewal Institute

The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.

Environment
4
Environment Now
—
5
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
6
Rainforest Foundation Inc

The purpose of rainforest foundation us is to support indigenous peoples and forest communities in their efforts to secure their lands, protect their environment, and uphold their rights.

Environment
7
CalWild

The California Wilderness Coalition protects the natural landscapes that make California unique, providing clean air and water, a home to wildlife, and a place for recreation and spiritual renewal.

—
8
Cascadia Wildlands

Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia's wild ecosystems in the forests,in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…

Environment
9
Asociacion Interamericana Para La Defensa Del Ambiente

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.

Crime & Legal
10
Rainforest Action Network

Rainforest Action Network (RAN) works toward a world where the rights and dignity of all communities are respected and where healthy forests, a stable climate and wild biodiversity are protected and celebrated.

Environment
11
Nature and Culture International

Nature and culture international conserves biologically diverse landscapes in latin america, in concert with local cultures, for the well-being of the planet.

Environment
12
Wild Earth Society Incorporated

Wildlands Network works to reconnect, restore and rewild North America so that life-in all its diversity-can thrive.

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Stand; the most unlike its peers is Prescott Film Society. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

64 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. 64 of the 75 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
63/64
Grantees still filing
43/64
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Natural History Institute: $900,000 · Arts & CultureNatural History InstituteHATCH: $125,000 · Arts & CultureHATCH+3 more: $28,000 · Arts & CultureHATCH: $155,000 · OtherHATCHIndividual grant recipient: $93,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientGREENPEACE INC: $55,000 · OtherGREENPEACE INCPRESCOTT COLLEGE INC: $45,000 · OtherPRESCOTT COLLEGE INCTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $41,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYThe 5 Gyres Institute: $34,000 · OtherThe 5 Gyres InstitutePLANNED PARENTHOOD: $34,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD+25 more: $164,000 · Other+25 moreEARTHJUSTICE: $50,000 · EnvironmentEARTHJUSTICEOCEAN CONSERVANCY: $40,000 · EnvironmentOCEAN CONSERVA…CENTRAL ARIZONA LAND TRUST: $29,000 · EnvironmentCENTRAL ARIZON…THE GRAND CANYON TRUST INC: $25,000 · EnvironmentTHE GRAND CANY…Earth Island Institute Inc: $23,000 · EnvironmentEarth Island I…SITKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $22,000 · EnvironmentSITKA CONSERVA…AMERICAN RIVERS INC: $15,000 · EnvironmentALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE: $13,000 · EnvironmentEyak Preservation Council dba Cultural Defense Fund: $12,000 · Environment+15 more: $77,000 · Environment+15 moreThe Pad Project: $158,000 · InternationalThe Pad P…CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INC: $35,000 · InternationalCENTER FO…+2 more: $5,000 · InternationalCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC: $42,000 · AnimalsAMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS: $25,000 · AnimalsWOLF CONSERVATION CENTER INC: $21,000 · AnimalsDefenders of Wildlife: $15,000 · AnimalsMONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION: $4,000 · Animals+1 more: $3,250 · AnimalsThe Launch Pad Teen Center: $22,000 · Youth DevelopmentAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC: $9,000 · Civil RightsTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC: $6,000 · Civil RightsEARTHRIGHTS INTERNATIONAL INC: $2,000 · Civil Rights
Arts & Culture$1,053,000Other$621,000Environment$306,000International$198,000Animals$110,250Youth Development$22,000Civil Rights$17,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNatural History Institute: $900,000 over 4y, 68% of budgetThe Pad Project: $158,000 over 3y, 7.6% of budgetHATCH: $125,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetGREENPEACE INC: $55,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE: $50,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetPRESCOTT COLLEGE INC: $45,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC: $42,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $41,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetOCEAN CONSERVANCY: $40,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetCENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INC: $35,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetThe 5 Gyres Institute: $34,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetCENTRAL ARIZONA LAND TRUST: $29,000 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetAMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS: $25,000 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetTHE GRAND CANYON TRUST INC: $25,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetEarth Island Institute Inc: $23,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetThe Launch Pad Teen Center: $22,000 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetSITKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $22,000 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetWOLF CONSERVATION CENTER INC: $21,000 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetPrescott Film Society: $20,000 over 1y, 36% of budgetAMERICAN RIVERS INC: $15,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetDefenders of Wildlife: $15,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE VERDE RIVER: $14,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetCOLORADO PLATEAU FOUNDATION: $13,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE: $13,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetEyak Preservation Council dba Cultural Defense Fund: $12,000 over 1y, 6.4% of budgetSIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGLOBAL GREENGRANTS FUND: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetOak Creek Watershed Council: $9,000 over 3y, 5.1% of budgetAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC: $9,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF WRITERS INC: $9,000 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetCOLLECTIVE HERITAGE INSTITUTE: $8,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR LOCAL SELF RELIANCE: $6,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetLOCAL FIRST ARIZONA FOUNDATION: $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC: $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATION: $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPLASTIC OCEANS INTERNATIONAL: $6,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION: $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAmazon Watch Inc: $6,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSouthern Utah Wilderness Alliance: $6,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetGREAT OLD BROADS FOR WILDERNESS: $6,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetPUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY INC: $6,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCOALITION FOR COMPASSION & JUSTICE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetNATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO INC: $5,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetWILDERNESS WATCH INC: $5,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP: $4,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHIGH COUNTRY NEWS: $4,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetLand is Life Inc: $4,000 over 2y, 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.

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.

Arizona Community Fou…Rsf Social Finance IncPatagoniaorgImpactassetsincThe Swf Immersion Fou…Frankel Family Founda…Tides FoundationWellspring Philanthro…The Schmidt Family Fo…Silicon Valley Commun…The David and Lucile …Orange County Communi…
Arizona Community FoundationAZ23.8× affinity11 shared granteesties to 10 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Arizona Community Foundation · Rsf Social Finance Inc · Patagoniaorg · Impactassetsinc · The Swf Immersion Foundation · Frankel Family Foundation · Tides Foundation · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · The Schmidt Family Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Orange County Community Foundation

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 Gwydion Fund for Wild Nature funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Gwydion Fund for Wild Nature. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 22%
  • Enterprise Community Partners Inc: 22% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get no government money at all
6report 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 Gwydion Fund for Wild Nature?

Find your warmest path to Gwydion Fund for Wild Nature 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 75 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Gwydion Fund for Wild Nature’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home