· Private foundation
Harold W Sweatt Foundation
Its FY2026 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2026.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2026
- Under $10k60 grants · $190k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $74k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE | $27,000 |
| JUPITER MEDICAL CENTER | $15,000 |
| HEAVEN'S GAIT RANCH | $12,000 |
| NAPA VALLEY COLLEGE FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION | $10,000 |
| AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION | $9,500 |
| NATURE CONSERVANCY | $8,000 |
| ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION | $7,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $7,000 |
| BATH & TENNIS CLUB HISTORIC BUILDING PRESERVATION FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| DIRECT RELIEF | $5,000 |
| EYE SURGEONS INTERNATIONAL | $5,000 |
| ORANGUTAN FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL | $5,000 |
| SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST USA | $5,000 |
| NAPA HUMANE SOCIETY | $5,000 |
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 (FY24–26, $9k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 61% 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.
50 repeat relationships — 44 still active in FY2026, 6 since wound down; 19 grantees were first funded in FY2026 (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 FY2026, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $66k 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
- TNTHE NAPA VALLEY COLLEGE FOUNDATION3× · 2024–2026 · $35k · revenue +29%
- JMJupiter Medical Center Inc2× · 2025–2026 · $30k · revenue +93%
- TITHE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION3× · 2024–2026 · $15k · revenue +46%
Funded once
- SHSECOND HARVEST HEARTLANDone grant, 2024 · $10k · revenue 0%
THE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATIONgraduatedone grant, 2025 · $10k · revenue +59%- BGBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF TWIN CITIESone grant, 2024 · $10k
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.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
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…
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Wildaid's mission is to inspire change and empower the world to protect wildlife and vital habitats from critical threats.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
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.
Western rivers conservancy's mission is to protect outstanding river ecosystems in the western united states. continued on schedule o.we acquire land to conserve critical habitat, provide public access for compatible use and enjoyment, and…
The wildlands trust works throughout southeastern massachusetts to conserve and permanently protect native habitats, farmland, and lands of high ecologic and scenic value that serve to keep our communities healthy and our residents…
To sustain, restore, and enhance the nation's fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats.
Our mission is to act to conserve threatened species and ecosystems worldwide, choosing solutions that are sustainable, based on sound science and take into account human needs.
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…
The montana wildlife federation is a statewide conservation organization dedicated to protecting wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public access for outdoor recreation.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sierra Club Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Wellness in Action. 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 31 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 8% 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.
69 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 69 of the 98 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 THE NAPA VALLEY COLLEGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Heavens Gait Ranch Inc ↗
- Who funds Jupiter Medical Center Inc ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION ↗
- Who funds PALESTINE CHILDREN'S RELIEF FUND ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL WOLF CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds STEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN NEAR EAST REFUGEE AID ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SECOND HARVEST HEARTLAND ↗
- Who funds THE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds BUCKLEY INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds KIDS ON THE BALL INC ↗
- Who funds ORANGUTAN FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds Scripps College ↗
- Who funds RILEY'S URGENT FUND FOR FRIENDS ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds FLYNN CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS LTD ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds US COMMITTEE FOR REFUGEES AND IMMIGRANTS INC ↗
- Who funds OCEAN CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds ARTS COUNCIL OF BIG SKY ↗
- Who funds HOPE THE MISSION ↗
- Who funds DIRECT RELIEF ↗
- Who funds BOYS CLUB OF NAPA INC BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF NAPA VALLEY ↗
- Who funds PAGE EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC ↗
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 loosely connected circle, clustered around a few shared anchors.
Open a dossier: The Vermont Community Foundation · The Morris & Bessie Altman Foundation · Yellowstone Club Community Foundation · Spanish Peaks Community Foundation · Moonlight Community Foundation · The Carter Family Foundation · Antonio B and Rita M Pomerleau Foundation Inc · One Valley Community Foundation · Ben & Jerry's Foundation Inc · Knight Foundation CO M Scholz · Michael D Arneson and Susan H Arneson · Daily Family 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 Harold W Sweatt 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Committee On Temporary Shelter Inc — 52% of income from government
- Mercy Corps — 47% of income from government
- Dismas of Vermont Inc — 39% of income from government
- Burlington City Arts Foundation Inc — 6% of income from government
- Shelburne Farms — 3% of income from government
- Jupiter Medical Center Inc — 2% of income from government
- Flynn Center for the Performing Arts Ltd — 0% of income from government
- Big Dog Ranch Rescue Inc — 0% of income from government
- Vermont Public Co — 0% of income from government
- K9S for Warriors 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 Harold W Sweatt Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Harold W Sweatt 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.