· Public charity
Jackson Hole One Fly Foundation
To conserve trout streams and trout habitat
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 12 grants below total $384,264 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $434,419 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $50,155 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k3 grants · $23k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $264k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $98k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| FRIENDS OF THE TETON RIVER | $97,555 |
| USGS | $48,140 |
| TROUT UNLIMITED | $45,000 |
| PROTECT OUR WATER JACKSON HOLE | $36,000 |
| HENRY'S FORK FOUNDATION | $36,000 |
| TROUT UNLIMITED | $36,000 |
| EAST YELLOWSTON TROUT UNLIMITED | $27,000 |
| TROUT UNLIMITED | $22,500 |
| TROUT UNLIMITED | $13,500 |
| TROUT UNLIMITED | $9,000 |
| TROUT UNLIMITED | $7,069 |
| TROUT UNLIMITED | $6,500 |
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 26% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
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 +133% since the first grant, against +37% for the ones you funded once.
14 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $70k 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
- TUTROUT UNLIMITED INC9× · 2017–2025 · $412k · revenue +133%
GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION7× · 2017–2023 · $328k · revenue +113%- FOFRIENDS OF THE TETON RIVER INC7× · 2019–2025 · $276k · revenue +285%
Funded once
- UOUNIVERSITY OF WYOMING FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue -6%
- TRTETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST INCgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $30k · revenue +185%
- NPNATIONAL PARK SERVICE2× · 2017–2018 · $23k
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 conserve, protect and restore montana's coldwater fisheries and watersheds.
To promote science-based wildlife management that fosters ecosystem health and dynamic equilibrium between species throughout the state of wyoming.
The wood river land trust's mission is to protect and sustain the treasured landscapes and life-giving waters of the wood river valley and to inspire love for this special place for generations to come.
The Idaho Wildlife Federation (IWF) promotes the conservation of Idaho's wildlife heritage and legacy of sporting opportunities for the current and future generations.
Upper missouri waterkeeper protects fishable, swimmable, drinkable water throughout the 25,000 square miles of montana's upper missouri river basin of montana. to accomplish this mission we actively engage with citizens, stakeholders and…
Maintain the swan valley's unique natural resources and ensure that a vibrant human community can sustain itself through stewardship, education, economic viability, and conservation on public and private lands.
To conserve functioning salmon/steelhead eco-system at watershed levels, integrate angling activities with basic scientific research, collect raw data, monitor environmental functions, salmon/steelhead population dynamics, public…
Icl's mission is to create a conservation community and pragmatic, enduring solutions that protect and restore the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land and wildlife you love.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Protect Our Water Jackson Hole Inc and the most unlike its peers is Trout Unlimited Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 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. 13 of the 27 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 TROUT UNLIMITED INC ↗
- Who funds GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE TETON RIVER INC ↗
- Who funds HENRYS FORK FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TROUT UNLIMITED JACKSON HOLE 051 ↗
- Who funds PROTECT OUR WATER JACKSON HOLE INC ↗
- Who funds TETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds WYOMING WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
- Who funds SNAKE RIVER FUND ↗
- Who funds MONTANA CONSERVATION CORPS INC ↗
- Who funds TETON SCIENCE SCHOOLS 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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Community Foundation of Jackson Hole · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Marin Community Foundation · Wyoming Humanities Council · Cross Charitable Foundation Attn John R Clark · The Nature Conservancy · The Miami Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Jackson Hole One Fly 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 Jackson Hole One Fly Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Jackson Hole One Fly 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.