· Private foundation
Meglbagl 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 placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k6 grants · $31k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $70k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $65k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ROWLAND HALL | $65,000 |
| CRAIG HOSPITAL FOUNDATION | $20,000 |
| COMMON SENSE MEDIA | $10,000 |
| SWANER PRESERVE AND ECOCENTER | $10,000 |
| LIVE LIKE SAM FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP | $10,000 |
| SUMMIT LAND CONSERVANCY | $10,000 |
| NATIONAL ABILITY CENTER | $8,000 |
| BUFFALO THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER | $8,000 |
| CHRISTIAN CENTER OF PARK CITY | $5,000 |
| ALEX'S LEMONADE STAND FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| THRIVE ANIMAL RESCUE | $3,000 |
| PHASE ONE FOUNDATION | $2,000 |
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 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 49% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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 +80% since the first grant, against +61% for the ones you funded once.
20 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 4 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, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $33k 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
- RHROWLAND HALL-ST MARK'S SCHOOL5× · 2021–2025 · $216k · revenue +84%
- CHCraig Hospital Foundation4× · 2022–2025 · $80k · revenue +23%
- BTBUFFALO THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER INC9× · 2017–2025 · $64k · revenue +37%
Funded once
- HFHUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATIONgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $3k · revenue +51%
- AFACLU FOUNDATIONone grant, 2020 · $3k
- WIWELLNESS IN THE SCHOOLS INCgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $3k · revenue +339%
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.
Animal outlook is a national animal protection organization working to end the abuse of farmed animals using a variety of strategies, including investigations, legal advocacy, corporate and food system reform, and vegan outreach.
Curesearch's mission is to fund & support targeted & innovative cancer research with measurable results, & to be the authoritative source of information & resources for all those affected by children's cancer. see schedule o for…
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…
Animal care sanctuary's lifesaving mission as a no kill organization envisions a community that promotes turning compassion into action for companion animals by: 1.) adopting healthy pet companions into loving homes. 2.) promoting the…
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
The samuel waxman cancer research foundation (the "foundation") funds innovative research to bring faster cures to patients. in addition to supporting ongoing collaborative research in specific cancers, our scientists are investigating the…
Marin humane transforms lives through exceptional animal care, humane education, and advocacy. every day, marin humane inspires compassion and positive relationships between people and animals.
Preserving and enhancing the habitat of wildlife, such as sandhill cranes, waterfowl, raptors, which habitat expenses are supported by agricultural activities.
To maximize programs intended to stop killing of adoptable animals.
Our goal is to sustainably improve animal welfare, provide veterinary care, and improve veterinary education globally. in order to achieve this goal, we work in over 10 countries, across 5 continents, supporting local people and animals,…
Animal equality is an international organization working with society, governments, and companies to end cruelty to farmed animals.
Connect conservationists and supporters, deploy resources to the field, provide conservationists with tools and support they need to succeed.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is We the Protesters Inc and the most unlike its peers is Humane World for Animals Inc. 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 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% 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.
27 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. 27 of the 32 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 ROWLAND HALL-ST MARK'S SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds Craig Hospital Foundation ↗
- Who funds BUFFALO THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP ↗
- Who funds ALEXS LEMONADE STAND FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE WILLOWS COMMUNITY SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds COMMON SENSE MEDIA ↗
- Who funds THRIVE ANIMAL RESCUE INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds THE GENTLE BARN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BABY2BABY ↗
- Who funds Cure Childhood Cancer Inc ↗
- Who funds PEDIATRIC CANCER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LIVE LIKE SAM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Summit Land Conservancy ↗
- Who funds PHASE ONE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ABILITY CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ↗
- Who funds CHRISTIAN CENTER OF PARK CITY ↗
- Who funds HUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds WELLNESS IN THE SCHOOLS INC ↗
- Who funds Humane World for Animals Inc ↗
- Who funds ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds THE LOVELAND FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds WE THE PROTESTERS INC ↗
- Who funds REACH OUT AND READ 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: Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · National Philanthropic Trust · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · 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 Meglbagl 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.
- Reach Out and Read Inc — 9% 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 Meglbagl Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Meglbagl 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.