How much did Maki Foundation grant in FY2025?

Environment$1.6MAnimals$151kCommunity Improvement$63kArts & Culture$47kPublic Benefit$28kRecreation & Sports$21kCivil Rights$10kFood & Nutrition$10kOther$0

02FY2025 · 51 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$5,000

Median grant

States reached

$5.0M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
Aspen Journalism	$7,000
Great Old Broads for Wilderness	$6,000
Energy & Conservation Law	$6,000
Sierra Club Foundation Wyoming	$6,000
Snake River Waterkeeper	$5,000
Friends of the Clearwater	$5,000
Montana Environmental Information Center	$5,000
Yellowstone to Uintas Connection	$5,000
Individual grant recipient	$5,000
Western Leaders Network	$5,000
The Salmonfly Project	$5,000
Sheep Mountain Alliance	$5,000
San Juan Citizens Alliance	$5,000
Individual grant recipient	$5,000
Idaho Wildlife Federation	$5,000

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$1.8M · 86 repeat orgs$119k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +64% since the first grant, against +26% for the ones you funded once.

86 repeat relationships — 42 still active in FY2025, 44 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$1.8M

$84k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+64%

+26%

Still filing today

77%

48%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EnvironmentAnimalsHuman ServicesArts & CultureEducationCommunity ImprovementOther

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

EC
ENERGY & CONSERVATION LAW
9× · 2017–2025 · $50k · revenue +70%
AJ
Aspen Journalism
7× · 2019–2025 · $47k · revenue +54%
WM
WESTERN MINING ACTION PROJECT INC
9× · 2017–2025 · $45k · revenue +74%

Funded once

US
Utah State University Beaver Ecology & Relocation Center
one grant, 2022 · $5k
UW
Utah Wildlife Federation
one grant, 2023 · $5k
IG
Individual grant recipient
one grant, 2024 · $5k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

Gallatin Wildlife Association

Promote research and actions to save wildlife.

Animals

Wyoming Wildlife Advocates

To promote science-based wildlife management that fosters ecosystem health and dynamic equilibrium between species throughout the state of wyoming.

Animals

Native Ecosystems Council

Promote wildlife habitat

Environment

Living Rivers

Living rivers promotes river restoration through mobilization by articulating conservation and alternative management strategies to the public. seeking to revive the natural habitat and spirit of rivers by undoing the extensive damage done…

Environment

Upper Colorado River Alliance

Environment

Upper Missouri Waterkeeper Inc

Upper missouri waterkeeper protects fishable, swimmable, drinkable water throughout the 25,000 square miles of montana's upper missouri river basin of montana. to accomplish this mission we actively engage with citizens, stakeholders and…

Education

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

Santa Fe Forest Coalition

Educate the public on forest conservation issues in New Mexico

Environment

Idaho Conservation League Inc

Icl's mission is to create a conservation community and pragmatic, enduring solutions that protect and restore the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land and wildlife you love.

—

Utah Public Lands Alliance

Education

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.

—

Wilderness Conservation Foundation

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Alliance for the Wild Rockies Inc and the most unlike its peers is Mosquito Range Heritage Initiative. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 27 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) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

1%1/90

the rest of the field

13%

240,395/1,819,475

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.

04the grantee network

84 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. 84 of the 122 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

82/84

Grantees still filing

61/84

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Environment$1,056,200Other$593,000Animals$88,500Arts & Culture$77,500Human Services$62,000Community Improvement$46,000Education$16,000

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.

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.

PatagoniaorgCA108.5× affinity64 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Patagoniaorg · The New-Land Foundation Inc · Resources Legacy Fund · The Wilderness Society · Western Conservation Foundation · Wilburforce Foundation · The Pew Charitable Trusts · Colorado Gives Foundation · National Forest Foundation · The Wolcott Family Foundation · Clif Family Foundation · Conservation Lands 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 Maki 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

17report 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

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.

05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Maki Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Maki 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.

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