· Private foundation
Lynn R & Karl E Prickett Fund
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
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 43% of LYNN R & KARL E PRICKETT FUND’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k16 grants · $86k
- $10k–50k7 grants · $109k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| AMERICAN CHILDHOOD CANCER ORGANIZATION | $30,000 |
| YOUNG MENS CHRISTIANS ASSOCIATION OF KAUAI | $25,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC | $14,000 |
| SOUND EXPERIENCE | $10,000 |
| ANGEL STRONG LLC | $10,000 |
| WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER | $10,000 |
| SHARED HOPE INTERNATIONAL | $10,000 |
| VETERANS EXPLORATION THERAPY | $8,000 |
| UPPER MISSOURI WATERKEEPER INC | $8,000 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE | $7,000 |
| NORTHWEST FILM FORUM | $6,000 |
| SUSAN HOWARD'S NOVATO BOXING CLUB | $5,000 |
| BENJI PROJECT | $5,000 |
| LITTLE VILLAGE FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| NORTH BAY CNA | $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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $176k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 27% of those 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.
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.
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 +36% since the first grant, against +21% for the ones you funded once.
44 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2025, 28 since wound down; 6 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, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $62k 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
- ACAMERICAN CHILDHOOD CANCER ORGANIZAT5× · 2017–2025 · $126k · revenue +46%
- HHOPELINK6× · 2017–2022 · $109k · revenue +74%
- GPGlobal Pediatric Alliance9× · 2017–2025 · $104k · revenue +174%
Funded once
- SHSUPER HEROES HUMANE SOCIETYone grant, 2022 · $40k
- UOUNIVERSITY OF HAWAII FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $30k · revenue +56%
- ININLAND NORTHWEST LAND TRUSTone grant, 2018 · $25k · revenue +10%
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 strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
Wildearth guardians works to protect and restore the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the american west.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
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…
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.…
Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
Wildaid's mission is to inspire change and empower the world to protect wildlife and vital habitats from critical threats.
Connect conservationists and supporters, deploy resources to the field, provide conservationists with tools and support they need to succeed.
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
International Rivers protects rivers and defends the rights of communities that depend on them.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and the most unlike its peers is North Bay Cna. 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 31 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
87 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. 87 of the 102 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 AMERICAN CHILDHOOD CANCER ORGANIZAT ↗
- Who funds HOPELINK ↗
- Who funds Global Pediatric Alliance ↗
- Who funds Prader-Willi Homes of California ↗
- Who funds SUSAN HOWARD'S NOVATO BOXING CLUB ↗
- Who funds DG Educational Services ↗
- Who funds Kauai Sailing Association ↗
- Who funds INTER-NATION CULTURAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds SHARED HOPE INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NORTHWEST MISSISSIPPI ↗
- Who funds Sound Experience ↗
- Who funds CHILDHAVEN ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds Little Village Foundation ↗
- Who funds SOUTH WHIDBEY GOOD CHEER ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDHOOD CANCER GUIDES ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT NORTHWEST HAWAII ALASKA INDIANA AND KENTUCKY ↗
- Who funds THE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE ↗
- Who funds PREDATOR DEFENSE ↗
- Who funds NORTHWEST FILM FORUM ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds REFUGEE & IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR EDUCATION & LEGAL SERVICES ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL RELIEF TEAMS ↗
- Who funds BUILDING A GLOBAL COMMUNITY ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL TROPICAL BOTANICAL GARDEN ↗
- Who funds YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF KAUAI ↗
- Who funds SPOKANE RIVERKEEPER ↗
- Who funds INLAND NORTHWEST LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY LOAVES ↗
- Who funds From The Heart Productions ↗
- Who funds WINGS OF RESCUE 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: Gunzenhauser Chapin Fund · Seattle Foundation · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Give Lively Foundation Inc · Puget Sound Energy Foundation · Medina Foundation · McKinstry Charitable Foundation · The Burning Foundation · Lucky Seven Foundation · The Norcliffe Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · The San Francisco 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 Lynn R & Karl E Prickett Fund 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.
- Groton Hill Music Inc — 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 Lynn R & Karl E Prickett Fund?
Find your warmest path to Lynn R & Karl E Prickett Fund 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.