Skip to content
Jordan and Andrea Lott Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Jordan and Andrea Lott 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.

$140k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Education$490kEnvironment$146kPhilanthropy$120kRecreation & Sports$15kReligion$500
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $35k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
$15,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$3.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UW FOUNDATION$50,000
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA$50,000
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$15,000
THE OPEN WINDOW SCHOOL$10,000
US OLYMPIC & PARALYMPIC FOUNDATION$10,000
KINDERING$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 (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 36% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%WOOD RIVER JEWISH COMMUNITY: $500 → 7%IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE: $4k → 12%NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $10k → 9%SCHWAB CHARITABLE FUND: $120k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $50k → 14%THE OCEAN CLEANUP NORTH PACIFIC FOUNDATION: $4k → 17%US OLYMPIC & PARALYMPIC FOUNDATION: $10k → 9%THE OPEN WINDOW SCHOOL: $250k → 9%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $25k → 7%UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $50k → 14%KINDERING: $5k → 9%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $25k → 7%UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $50k → 14%THE OPEN WINDOW SCHOOL: $10k → 9%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $15k → 7%CAMP SOLOMON SCHECHTER: $5k → 9%EARTHGEN: $5k → 9%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF OCEANOGRAPHY: $50k → 9%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $25k → 9%UW FOUNDATION: $50k → 9%PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE: $4k → 9%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
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
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
2
Western Electricity Coordinating Council

To effectively and efficiently mitigate risks to the reliability and security of the western interconnection's bulk power system.

Public Benefit
3
National Association of Clean Water Agencies

Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.

—
4
Fsc I&P

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.…

Philanthropy
5
Ocean Conservancy

Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.

Environment
6
Washington Water Trust

Wwt's mission is to protect and restore water in rivers and streams across washington state. washington water trust restores and protects water in rivers and streams and promotes sustainable freshwater management in washington, and, more…

Environment
7
Washington Forest Law Center

Dedicated to protecting the world's natural environment on behalf of the public by serving as a public interest law firm. refer to schedule o, part iii, line 4a, for list of litigated cases or advocacy work.

—
8
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
9
Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Foundation

The foundation board is comprised of members with diverse backgrounds and expertise who devote their shared commitment and passion to collectively support protection and restoration of the washington coast region salmon by providing…

Animals
10
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Foundation

To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.

Animals
11
The Water Research Foundation

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…

Environment
12
Wild Salmon Rivers

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…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Forest Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Washington State Lake Protection Association. 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

14 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 14 of the 16 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
12/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OPEN WINDOW SCHOOL: $260,000 · OtherOPEN WINDOW SCHOOLTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $65,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF OCEANOGRAPHY: $50,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF OCEANOGRAPHY+4 more: $13,550 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $150,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $75,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATI…DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC: $120,000 · PhilanthropyDONOR ADVISED CHA…UNITED STATES OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Recreation & SportsNATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Recreation & SportsCamp Solomon Schechter: $5,000 · Recreation & SportsEarthGen Fka WA Green Schools: $5,000 · EnvironmentWASHINGTON STATE LAKE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION: $4,025 · EnvironmentPUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE: $4,016 · Environment
Other$388,550Education$225,000Philanthropy$120,000Recreation & Sports$25,000Environment$13,041

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetOPEN WINDOW SCHOOL: $260,000 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $150,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetDONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC: $120,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $75,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $65,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED STATES OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKINDERING CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCamp Solomon Schechter: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetEarthGen Fka WA Green Schools: $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE OCEAN CLEANUP FOUNDATION: $4,025 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetIDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE INC: $4,025 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE: $4,016 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.

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.

Lott FoundationSeattle FoundationMorgan Stanley Global…The Blackbaud Giving …Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Lott FoundationWA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Lott Foundation · Seattle Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Jordan and Andrea Lott Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jordan and Andrea Lott Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Jordan and Andrea Lott Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Jordan and Andrea Lott 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.

    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 16 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Jordan and Andrea Lott’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