Skip to content
Napa Valley Vintners at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$158k
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$90k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Environment$879kEducation$188kCommunity Improvement$160kFood & Nutrition$116kRecreation & Sports$65kArts & Culture$60kPublic Safety & Disaster$25kScience & Tech$24kOther$0
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $132,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $158,451 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $26,451 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $35k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $90k
$25,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$13M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Napa Green$90,000
Wine Unify$25,000
Napa Valley Trans Authority$10,000
American Canyon Comm Parks$7,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 30% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Wine Writers Symposium: $60k → 9%UC Berkeley Foundation: $41k → 10%Metropolitan Trans Commission: $125k → 10%Regents Univ of CA Davis: $24k → 16%Lift Collective: $10k → 10%The Smithsonian Institute: $25k → 14%Napa Communities Firewise Fdn: $25k → 9%The Wine Institute: $25k → 10%Committee for Sustainable Agr: $200k → 14%Friends & Found SH Public Lib: $10k → 9%Wine Institute: $8k → 10%Friends & Found SH Public Lib: $10k → 9%Friends & Found SH Public Lib: $10k → 9%Friends & Found SH Public Lib: $10k → 9%Friends & Found SH Public Lib: $10k → 9%Friends & Found SH Public Lib: $10k → 9%Cinco de Mayo Golf Inc: $10k → 9%FREE THE GRAPES: $30k → 9%FREE THE GRAPES: $30k → 9%Wine Unify: $25k → 9%American Canyon Comm Parks: $11k → 9%American Canyon Comm & Parks: $10k → 9%American Canyon Comm Parks: $7k → 9%American Canyon Comm & Parks: $5k → 9%Napa Green: $179k → 9%Napa Green: $120k → 9%Napa Green: $107k → 9%Napa Green: $91k → 9%Napa Green: $90k → 9%Napa Co Parks & Open Space: $25k → 9%Napa Valley Expo: $23k → 9%Napa High School: $18k → 9%Napa County Res Cons District: $16k → 9%Napa County Res Cons District: $14k → 9%Napa High School: $13k → 9%Napa County Res Cons District: $13k → 9%Napa County Res Cons District: $13k → 9%Napa County Res Cons District: $13k → 9%Napa High School: $10k → 9%Napa Valley Trans Authority: $10k → 9%Napa High School: $10k → 9%Napa Valley Trans Auth: $10k → 9%Napa High School: $9k → 9%Napa High Athletic Boosters: $7k → 9%Napa High School: $6k → 9%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

60%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$887k · 7 repeat orgs$599k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +220% since the first grant, against +3% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
12

Total granted

$887k
$574k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+220%
+3%

Still filing today

57%
58%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationEnvironmentRecreation & SportsHousing & ShelterPublic Safety & DisasterArts & CultureOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • NG
    NAPA GREEN
    5× · 2020–2024 · $587k · revenue +220% · 88% of their budget
  • WI
    WINE INSTITUTE
    3× · 2017–2019 · $93k · revenue +18%
  • AC
    AMERICAN CANYON COMMUNITY & PARKS FOUNDATION
    4× · 2017–2024 · $33k · revenue +426%

Funded once

  • CF
    Committee for Sustainable Agr
    one grant, 2018 · $200k
  • BA
    BAY AREA HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY
    one grant, 2019 · $125k
  • TS
    THE SYMPOSIUM FOR PROFESSIONAL WINE WRITERS AT MEADOWOOD NAPA VALLEY
    one grant, 2019 · $60k · revenue -46% · 43% of their budget
How this is measured

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

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Napa Valley Grapegrowers Foundation

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…

Food & Nutrition
2
Sonoma Botanical Garden
—
3
Napa County Seed Library
Environment
4
Cinema Napa Valley

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…

Education
5
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.

—
6
Napa Valley Wine Library Associatio

The organization's primary purpose is to share and preserve information on viticulture and enology.

—
7
Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition

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,…

Environment
8
Sustainable Napa County

The primary mission of sustainable napa county is to promote the education and adoption of sustainable environmental practices with the county of napa, california.

—
9
Napa Sonoma Mexican-American Vintners Association

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…

Community Improvement
10
Napa Valley State Parks Association

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…

Public Benefit
11
California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance

To promote sustainable winegrowing practices.

Food & Nutrition
12
Napa County Hispanic Network

We bring opportunity to community by offering scholarships and pograms that inspire the next generatio of napa county latino community leaders

Unclassified
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Napa Communities Firewise Foundation; 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.
04the grantee network

13 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
8/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Committee for Sustainable Agr: $200,000 · OtherCommittee for Sustainable AgrBAY AREA HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY: $125,000 · OtherBAY AREA HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITYWINE INSTITUTE: $93,000 · OtherWINE INSTITUTENapa Resource Conservation: $66,750 · OtherNapa Resource ConservationVINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL: $66,193 · OtherVINTAGE HIGH SCHOOLThe Friends of the Bancroft Library: $40,500 · OtherThe Friends of the Bancroft LibraryWINE UNIFY: $25,000 · OtherNapa Co Parks & Open Space: $25,000 · Other+4 more: $88,482 · Other+4 moreNAPA GREEN: $587,028 · EnvironmentNAPA GREENFRIENDS AND FOUNDATION ST HELENA PUBLIC LIBRARY: $60,000 · EducationFRIENDS A…THE SYMPOSIUM FOR PROFESSIONAL WINE WRITERS AT MEADOWOOD NAPA VALLEY: $60,000 · EducationTHE SYMPO…NAPA HIGH ATHLETIC BOOSTERS: $6,500 · EducationAMERICAN CANYON COMMUNITY & PARKS FOUNDATION: $33,005 · Recreation & SportsTHE NAPA COMMUNITIES FIREWISE FOUNDATION: $25,000 · Public Safety & DisasterSMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: $25,000 · Arts & CultureCINCO DE MAYO GOLF INC: $10,000 · Housing & ShelterLIFT COLLECTIVE: $10,000 · Civil Rights
Other$729,925Environment$587,028Education$126,500Recreation & Sports$33,005Public Safety & Disaster$25,000Arts & Culture$25,000Housing & Shelter$10,000Civil Rights$10,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNAPA GREEN: $587,028 over 5y, 88% of budgetWINE INSTITUTE: $93,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetFRIENDS AND FOUNDATION ST HELENA PUBLIC LIBRARY: $60,000 over 6y, 8.2% of budgetTHE SYMPOSIUM FOR PROFESSIONAL WINE WRITERS AT MEADOWOOD NAPA VALLEY: $60,000 over 1y, 43% of budgetThe Friends of the Bancroft Library: $40,500 over 1y, 13% of budgetAMERICAN CANYON COMMUNITY & PARKS FOUNDATION: $33,005 over 4y, 8.5% of budgetTHE NAPA COMMUNITIES FIREWISE FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetWINE UNIFY: $25,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetSMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNapa Sunrise Rotary Club: $21,250 over 2y, 9.4% of budgetCINCO DE MAYO GOLF INC: $10,000 over 1y, 7.2% of budgetLIFT COLLECTIVE: $10,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetNAPA HIGH ATHLETIC BOOSTERS: $6,500 over 1y, 5.3% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Peter a & Vernice H G…Community Foundation …Napa Valley Vintners …Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Peter a & Vernice H Gasser FoundationCA15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Napa Valley Vintners funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Napa Valley Vintners. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 21 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Napa Valley Vintners’ filings →

    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