· Public charity
Napa Valley Vintners
Ensure the economic viability and sustainability of the Napa Valley appellation through marketing, promotional, educational and training programs, work on critical industry issues, and enhance the well-being of the Napa County Community.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 4 grants below total $132,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $158,451 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $26,451 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $7k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $35k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $90k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Napa Green | $90,000 |
| Wine Unify | $25,000 |
| Napa Valley Trans Authority | $10,000 |
| American Canyon Comm Parks | $7,000 |
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 30% of your 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.
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 +220% since the first grant, against +5% for the ones you funded once.
7 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k 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
- NGNAPA GREEN5× · 2020–2024 · $587k · revenue +220% · 88% of their budget
- WIWINE INSTITUTE3× · 2017–2019 · $93k · revenue +18%
- ACAMERICAN CANYON COMMUNITY & PARKS FOUNDATION4× · 2017–2024 · $33k · revenue +426%
Funded once
- CFCommittee for Sustainable Agrone grant, 2018 · $200k
- BABAY AREA HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITYone grant, 2019 · $125k
- TSTHE SYMPOSIUM FOR PROFESSIONAL WINE WRITERS AT MEADOWOOD NAPA VALLEYone grant, 2019 · $60k · revenue -46% · 43% of their budget
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.
Cultivate viticultural excellence and environmental stewardship for the napa valley, to be a local and global leader for a science-based approach to grape growing and agricultural stewardship, to ensure the viability and resiliency of…
Cinema Napa Valley is a non-profit corporation seeking to enrich the Napa community through education, community outreach, and partnerships. Each year Cinema Napa Valley celebrates the cinematic arts, our community and independent…
Ensure the economic viability and sustainability of the Napa Valley appellation through marketing, promotional, educational and training programs, work on critical industry issues, and enhance the well-being of the Napa County Community.
The organization's primary purpose is to share and preserve information on viticulture and enology.
The Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition is a grass-roots nonprofit with a vision to build a walking/biking trail system to connect the entire Napa Valley--physically, artistically, and culturally. We are working to design, fund, construct,…
The primary mission of sustainable napa county is to promote the education and adoption of sustainable environmental practices with the county of napa, california.
To promote the napa-sonoma county wines produced by mexican-american vintners to the consumers in the united states and abroad. to advocate quality standards for our members and to promote & support the contributions of mexican-americans…
The Napa Valley State Parks Association is a volunteer-led, nonprofit organization that aims to raise funding and volunteers to support the three California State Parks in the beautiful Napa Valley: Bothe-Napa Valley State Park, the Bale…
To promote sustainable winegrowing practices.
We bring opportunity to community by offering scholarships and pograms that inspire the next generatio of napa county latino community leaders
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Napa Communities Firewise Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Smithsonian Institution. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 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. 13 of the 21 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 NAPA GREEN ↗
- Who funds WINE INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS AND FOUNDATION ST HELENA PUBLIC LIBRARY ↗
- Who funds THE SYMPOSIUM FOR PROFESSIONAL WINE WRITERS AT MEADOWOOD NAPA VALLEY ↗
- Who funds The Friends of the Bancroft Library ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CANYON COMMUNITY & PARKS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WINE UNIFY ↗
- Who funds THE NAPA COMMUNITIES FIREWISE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION ↗
- Who funds Napa Sunrise Rotary Club ↗
- Who funds CINCO DE MAYO GOLF INC ↗
- Who funds LIFT COLLECTIVE ↗
- Who funds NAPA HIGH ATHLETIC BOOSTERS ↗
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: Peter a & Vernice H Gasser Foundation · Community Foundation of the Napa Valley · Napa Valley Vintners Healthy Community Fund · 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 Napa Valley Vintners 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.
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.