· Private foundation
Jubitz Family Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k22 grants · $124k
- $10k–50k21 grants · $330k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CURE VIOLENCE GLOBAL | $35,000 |
| BARK | $35,000 |
| HOOD RIVER WATERSHED GROUP | $30,000 |
| COLUMBIA RIVERKEEPER | $30,000 |
| COLUMBIA LAND TRUST | $22,500 |
| WELCOME HOME COALITION | $15,000 |
| OREGON WILD | $15,000 |
| ECOCHALLENGEORG | $15,000 |
| COLUMBIA INSIGHT | $12,500 |
| OSU FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| WOMEN CROSS DMZ | $10,000 |
| PORTLAND PEACE INITIATIVE | $10,000 |
| HUMBOLDT AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| RIOS TO RIVERS | $10,000 |
| STANFORD LAW SCHOOL | $10,000 |
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 (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 88% 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 9% of Jubitz Family Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 67% of the giving stays in OR; read by stated purpose it is 60% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
74 repeat relationships — 29 still active in FY2025, 45 since wound down; 13 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, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $68k 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
- CRColumbia Riverkeeper7× · 2019–2025 · $106k · revenue +57%
- CSCOLUMBIA SLOUGH WATERSHED COUNCIL INC2× · 2022–2023 · $104k · revenue +59%
- BBARK7× · 2019–2025 · $104k · revenue +9%
Funded once
- RAROTARY ACTION GROUP FOR PEACEone grant, 2020 · $97k · revenue -41%
DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER OF KITSAPgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue +42%- WVWILLAMETTE VALLEY LAW PROJECT DBA PCUN FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $33k · revenue +88%
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.
The Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council is a local nonprofit organization that strives to enhance and restore habitat for fish and wildlife our community and for future generations. Our Board of Directors consists of seven members with…
Nedc's mission is to work toward a future in which the pacific northwest leads the nation in developing, implementing & enforcing strong laws and regulations that protect the environment & human health, and where our governments &…
Building a diverse grassroots movement to address the causes of climate disruption through justice-based solutions by inspiring, training and mobilizing people to act.
Work through advocacy and education to use federal environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act to protect and restore water quality and habit in the Pacific Northwest and nationwide.
The NW Energy Coalition is an alliance of over 100 environmental, civic, and human service organizations, utilities, and businesses in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia, plus many individual members. The NW Energy…
Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility engages the community to create a healthy, just, peaceful and sustainable world. We take on the gravest current threats to human health and survival -- nuclear weapons, economic inequity, and…
Develop educational network to communicate historical and scientific information empasizing natural and cultural resources to pacific northwest.
Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia's wild ecosystems in the forests,in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…
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.
Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.
The Center for Environmental Law & Policy is a statewide organization whose mission is to protect, preserve and restore Washington's waters through education, advocacy, policy reform, and public interest litigation.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wild Salmon Center and the most unlike its peers is Home Share Oregon. 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 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 6% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.9% lost their exemption, against 11% 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.
99 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. 99 of the 125 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 Columbia Riverkeeper ↗
- Who funds COLUMBIA SLOUGH WATERSHED COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds BARK ↗
- Who funds ROTARY ACTION GROUP FOR PEACE ↗
- Who funds Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund Oregon Wild ↗
- Who funds HOOD RIVER WATERSHED GROUP ↗
- Who funds WaterWatch of Oregon ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF OREGON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SUSTAINABLE NORTHWEST ↗
- Who funds Nonviolent Peaceforce ↗
- Who funds CRAG LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds CURE VIOLENCE GLOBAL ↗
- Who funds PLOUGHSHARES FUND INC ↗
- Who funds GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds NORTHWEST EARTH INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL ZERO ↗
- Who funds Inkstick Media Inc ↗
- Who funds DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER OF KITSAP ↗
- Who funds Oregon Agricultural Trust ↗
- Who funds THE NEXT DOOR INC ↗
- Who funds THE FRESHWATER TRUST ↗
- Who funds Oregon State University Foundation ↗
- Who funds Verde Inc ↗
- Who funds SPEARFISH FOUNDATION FOR PUBLIC ED INC ↗
- Who funds Win Without War Education Fund ↗
- Who funds WOMEN CROSS DMZ Attn CATHI CHOI ↗
- Who funds Waging Nonviolence Inc ↗
- Who funds WESTERN RIVERS CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds PORTLAND PEACE INITIATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds WILLAMETTE VALLEY LAW PROJECT DBA PCUN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds Network of Oregon Watershed Councils ↗
- Who funds COLUMBIA INSIGHT ↗
- Who funds WILD SALMON CENTER ↗
- Who funds WILLAMETTE RIVERKEEPER ↗
- Who funds WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER ↗
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: Meyer Memorial Trust · The Oregon Community Foundation · The Collins Foundation · The Burning Foundation · The Lazar Foundation · The Bullitt Foundation · Ploughshares Fund Inc · Earth Day Oregon · Patagoniaorg · Seeding Justice · The Autzen Foundation · The Healy 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 Jubitz Family 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Harney County Watershed Council Inc — 91% of income from government
- WaterWatch of Oregon — 61% of income from government
- Wild Salmon Center — 49% of income from government
- Willamette Riverkeeper — 42% of income from government
- Crag Rats — 41% of income from government
- The Next Door Inc — 39% of income from government
- Clackamas River Basin Council Inc — 36% of income from government
- Hood River Watershed Group — 20% of income from government
- The Coalition of Oregon Land Trusts — 18% of income from government
- Willamette Valley Law Project Dba Pcun Foundation — 18% of income from government
- The Freshwater Trust — 17% of income from government
- Beyond Toxics — 13% of income from government
- Columbia Slough Watershed Council Inc — 11% of income from government
- Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians — 10% of income from government
- Oregon Natural Desert Association — 9% of income from government
- Eastern Oregon Womens Coalition — 8% of income from government
- Sustainable Northwest — 5% of income from government
- Verde Inc — 3% of income from government
- Smart Reading — 3% of income from government
- Bark — 2% of income from government
- Oregon Agricultural Trust — 2% of income from government
- Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund Oregon Wild — 2% of income from government
- Columbia Riverkeeper — 1% of income from government
- The Filmmakers Collaborative Inc — 1% of income from government
- Tualatin Riverkeepers Inc — 1% of income from government
- Bird Alliance of Oregon Inc — 0% of income from government
- Western Rivers Conservancy — 0% of income from government
- The Epiphany School Inc — 0% of income from government
- Oregon State University Foundation — 0% of income from government
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 Jubitz Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Jubitz Family 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.