· 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $10k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $130k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $210k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| NATURE IN THE CITY | $10,000 |
| LIVABLE CITY | $10,000 |
| TULEYOME | $10,000 |
| SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN WATCH | $10,000 |
| GREEN FOOTHILLS FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 96% of your 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.
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 +52% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you 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
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $40k 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
- AVAPPALACHIAN VOICES9× · 2017–2025 · $350k · revenue +189%
- CFCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC7× · 2017–2023 · $235k · revenue +127%
- ACAMAZON CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION9× · 2017–2025 · $170k · revenue +52%
Funded once
- ABAmerican Bird Conservancyone grant, 2024 · $15k · revenue 0%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2017 · $10k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · $5k
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.
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…
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.
Create and publish educational materials, conduct professional development, promote awareness, and sponsor research on the spectacular biological diversity of the State of CA.
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.
Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities.
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…
Wildlands Network works to reconnect, restore and rewild North America so that life-in all its diversity-can thrive.
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…
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…
Nature and culture international conserves biologically diverse landscapes in latin america, in concert with local cultures, for the well-being of the planet.
The San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory is dedicated to the conservation of birds and their habitats through science and outreach.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildlife Conservation Network Inc and 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.
18 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. 18 of the 22 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 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 ↗
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: 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
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 Jeff & Connie Woodman 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.