Skip to content
Jeff & Connie Woodman Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Jeff & Connie Woodman Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$350k
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$1.2MAnimals$389kArts & Culture$45kEmployment$37kHousing & Shelter$10kOther$0
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $130k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $210k
$15,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$2.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK$100,000
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP$60,000
APPALACHIAN VOICES$50,000
FRIENDS OF TUCSON'S BIRTHPLACE$30,000
AMAZON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION$25,000
LITERACY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE$20,000
NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLY ASSOCIATION$15,000
LIVABLE CITY$10,000
TULEYOME$10,000
SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN WATCH$10,000
NATURE IN THE CITY$10,000
GREEN FOOTHILLS FOUNDATION$5,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%DESERT SURVIVORS: $10k → 15%SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN WATCH: $10k → 7%NATURE IN THE CITY: $10k → 10%CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY: $10k → 12%TULEYOME: $10k → 16%HOUSTON ZOO: $25k → 16%AMAZON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $25k → 14%APPALACHIAN VOICES: $50k → 21%NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLY ASSOCIATION: $15k → 4%AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY: $15k → 6%NATURE IN THE CITY: $10k → 10%CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY: $10k → 12%HOUSTON ZOO: $25k → 16%AMAZON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $25k → 14%APPALACHIAN VOICES: $50k → 21%NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLY ASSOCIATION: $10k → 4%HOUSTON ZOO: $25k → 16%AMAZON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $25k → 14%APPALACHIAN VOICES: $40k → 21%HOUSTON ZOO: $25k → 16%AMAZON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $25k → 14%APPALACHIAN VOICES: $35k → 21%HOUSTON ZOO: $25k → 16%AMAZON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $25k → 14%APPALACHIAN VOICES: $35k → 21%HOUSTON ZOO: $20k → 16%AMAZON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $15k → 14%APPALACHIAN VOICES: $35k → 21%LITERACY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: $20k → 10%HOUSTON ZOO: $20k → 16%AMAZON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $10k → 14%APPALACHIAN VOICES: $35k → 21%FRIENDS OF TUCSON'S BIRTHPLACE: $30k → 15%LITERACY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: $10k → 10%APPALACHIAN VOICES: $35k → 21%FRIENDS OF TUCSON'S BIRTHPLACE: $15k → 15%APPALACHIAN VOICES: $35k → 21%WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP: $60k → 15%WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP: $40k → 15%WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP: $35k → 15%WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP: $30k → 15%WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP: $30k → 15%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $100k → 10%WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP: $30k → 15%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $65k → 10%WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP: $30k → 15%WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP: $30k → 15%WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP: $30k → 15%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.
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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.6M · 14 repeat orgs$70k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +52% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
3

Total granted

$1.6M
$30k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+52%
0%

Still filing today

93%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $40k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentAnimalsArts & CultureYouth DevelopmentEmploymentPublic BenefitOther
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

  • AV
    APPALACHIAN VOICES
    9× · 2017–2025 · $350k · revenue +189%
  • CF
    CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC
    7× · 2017–2023 · $235k · revenue +127%
  • AC
    AMAZON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $170k · revenue +52%

Funded once

  • AB
    American Bird Conservancy
    one grant, 2024 · $15k · revenue 0%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $5k
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
Sustainable Conservation

Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…

Environment
2
Bay Nature Institute dba Bay Nature Bay Nature Magazine

Bay Nature connects the people of the San Francisco Bay Area to our natural world and motivates people to solve problems with nature in mind. Our vision is that all people have a close relationship with theirnatural world.

Environment
3
California Institute for Biodiversity

Create and publish educational materials, conduct professional development, promote awareness, and sponsor research on the spectacular biological diversity of the State of CA.

Education
4
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.

—
5
Defenders of Wildlife

Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities.

Animals
6
Environment Now
—
7
Amazon Watch Inc

To protect the rainforest and advance the rights of Indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with Indigenous communities in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability, and the preservation of the Amazon Basin's…

Environment
8
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
9
Wild Earth Allies Inc

Our mission is to protect vital areas of our natural world for the benefit of wildlife, habitats, and people by inspiring collaborative action. Our vision is a world where wildlife and people flourish in healthy ecosystems that sustain us…

Environment
10
Natura International Inc

Natura International conserves rainforests and other key natural ecosystems and the endangered species they contain through creation of protected areas in collaboration with local governments and communities in Latin America. In this way…

Public Benefit
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
San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory

The San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory is dedicated to the conservation of birds and their habitats through science and outreach.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildlife Conservation Network Inc; the most unlike its peers is Literacy for Environmental Justice. 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

18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 18 of the 22 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
11/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

APPALACHIAN VOICES: $350,000 · EnvironmentAPPALACHIAN VOICESWatershed Management Group Inc: $315,000 · EnvironmentWatershed Management Group IncAMAZON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $170,000 · EnvironmentAMAZON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION+4 more: $55,000 · Environment+4 moreCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC: $235,000 · AnimalsCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INCHouston Zoo Inc: $165,000 · AnimalsHouston Zoo IncWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $165,000 · AnimalsWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INCNORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLY ASSOCIATION INC: $25,000 · Animals+2 more: $34,000 · Animals+2 moreNATURE IN THE CITY: $46,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $5,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $5,000 · OtherGreen Foothills Foundation dba Green Foothills: $5,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF TUCSON'S BIRTHPLACE: $45,000 · Arts & CultureLiteracy for Environmental Justice: $42,500 · Youth DevelopmentDesert Survivors Inc: $36,500 · EmploymentLivable City: $10,000 · Public Benefit
Environment$890,000Animals$624,000Other$71,000Arts & Culture$45,000Youth Development$42,500Employment$36,500Public Benefit$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAPPALACHIAN VOICES: $350,000 over 9y, 1.5% of budgetWatershed Management Group Inc: $315,000 over 9y, 3.3% of budgetCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC: $235,000 over 7y, 0.3% of budgetAMAZON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $170,000 over 9y, 0.8% of budgetHouston Zoo Inc: $165,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $165,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF TUCSON'S BIRTHPLACE: $45,000 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetLiteracy for Environmental Justice: $42,500 over 4y, 1.7% of budgetDesert Survivors Inc: $36,500 over 7y, 0.5% of budgetNORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLY ASSOCIATION INC: $25,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetCalifornia Native Plant Society: $25,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetSAVE THE FROGS: $19,000 over 5y, 3.9% of budgetAmerican Bird Conservancy: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetEarth Island Institute Inc: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLivable City: $10,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetGreen Foothills Foundation dba Green Foothills: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

  • Who funds APPALACHIAN VOICES ↗
  • Who funds Watershed Management Group Inc ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC ↗
  • Who funds AMAZON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds Houston Zoo Inc ↗
  • Who funds WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF TUCSON'S BIRTHPLACE ↗
  • Who funds Literacy for Environmental Justice ↗
  • Who funds Desert Survivors Inc ↗
  • Who funds NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLY ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds California Native Plant Society ↗
  • Who funds SAVE THE FROGS ↗
  • Who funds American Bird Conservancy ↗
  • Who funds San Bruno Mountain Watch ↗
  • Who funds Earth Island Institute Inc ↗
  • Who funds Livable City ↗
  • Who funds TULEYOME ↗
  • Who funds Green Foothills Foundation dba Green Foothills ↗

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.

Texas Instruments Fou…Silicon Valley Commun…American Endowment Fo…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Network for GoodDonor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Texas Instruments FoundationTX14.1× affinity5 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Texas Instruments Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Jeff & Connie Woodman Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jeff & Connie Woodman Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
    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.

    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 22 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Jeff & Connie Woodman’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