· Private foundation
iQuest Charitable Foundation
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 FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k20 grants · $45k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Mother Rosa Foundation | $50,000 |
| Peninsula Humane Society | $5,000 |
| National Mobilization Against Sweatshops | $5,000 |
| Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust | $5,000 |
| Rock the Vote | $3,000 |
| When We All Vote | $3,000 |
| Headcount | $3,000 |
| Mary's Place | $2,000 |
| Earth Crops | $2,000 |
| Black Farmers Collective | $2,000 |
| Perinatal Support Washington | $2,000 |
| Low Income Housing Institute | $2,000 |
| Solid Ground | $2,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,000 |
| Charity Water | $1,000 |
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 US giving — 58% of grant dollars ($209k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 42% that went abroad ($154k) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY20–24, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 56% 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
Beyond the US — 42% of all-years giving ($154k)
1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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 +27% since the first grant, against +6% for the ones you funded once.
25 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down; 10 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, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $19k 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
- TMThe Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust3× · 2022–2024 · $13k · revenue +75%
- HSHUMANE SOCIETY SILICON VALLEY2× · 2022–2023 · $7k · revenue +9%
- HCHEAD COUNT INC2× · 2023–2024 · $5k · revenue +206%
Funded once
- YLYoung Living Foundationone grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +13%
- MRMOTHER ROSA MEMORIAL FOUNDATIONone grant, 2021 · $4k
- ODOPEN DOORS TO FUTURE POSSIBILITIES INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $3k · revenue +54%
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.
We are workers, united across different industries to improve our working conditions and our lives. We come together as working people to build power through education, organizing, and enforcement. We work to raise and uphold standards in…
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…
Disability rights washington's mission is to advance the dignity, equality, and self determination of people with disabilities. we work to pursue justice on matters related to human and legal rights.
Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.
Fsc i&p promotes environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world's forests. this mission aligns with the forest stewardship council (fsc), its network of offices, and other organizations.…
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
Women donors network advances a just, equitable, and sustainable world through the power of philanthropy, women's leadership, and collective and individual action.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
Making our government work better is a daunting task, and we are a small organization seeking to transform a government that employs millions of civilians and manages trillions of dollars in taxpayer revenue needed to protect public…
The organization's mission is to leverage web-technologies to improve civic engagement and voter education.
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Mobilization Against Sweatshops Sweatshops Inc and the most unlike its peers is Charity Global Inc. 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 27 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) — 2% 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.
54 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. 54 of the 82 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 NATIONAL MOBILIZATION AGAINST SWEATSHOPS SWEATSHOPS INC ↗
- Who funds The Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust ↗
- Who funds Young Living Foundation ↗
- Who funds HUMANE SOCIETY SILICON VALLEY ↗
- Who funds HEAD COUNT INC ↗
- Who funds PRO PUBLICA INC ↗
- Who funds Solid Ground Washington ↗
- Who funds CHARITY GLOBAL INC ↗
- Who funds US CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK ↗
- Who funds OPEN DOORS TO FUTURE POSSIBILITIES INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds Lavender Rights Project ↗
- Who funds THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER ↗
- Who funds ROCK THE VOTE ↗
- Who funds COASTAL WATERSHED INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds LOW INCOME HOUSING INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds THE SATO PROJECT ↗
- Who funds SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds SWEET FARM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PAGE AHEAD CHILDRENS LITERACY PRGM ↗
- Who funds Fair Elections Center ↗
- Who funds The Education Trust Inc ↗
- Who funds Maris Place ↗
- Who funds PERINATAL SUPPORT WASHINGTON ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL CIVIC LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds TNTP INC ↗
- Who funds Earthcorps ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY ↗
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: Seattle Foundation · The Satterberg Foundation Inc · The Norcliffe Foundation · Moccasin Lake Foundation · Lucky Seven Foundation · The Bullitt Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Credit Unions in the State of Washington · Puget Sound Energy Foundation · Gates Foundation · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Helen Martha Schiff 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 iQuest Charitable 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 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 iQuest Charitable Foundation?
Find your warmest path to iQuest Charitable 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.