· Private foundation
Mighty Arrow Family Foundation
Its FY2024 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 FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k21 grants · $81k
- $10k–50k34 grants · $766k
- $50k–250k16 grants · $875k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CSU FOUNDATION PAUL HUDNUT IMPACT MBA FELLOWSHIP | $100,000 |
| GEORGIA ALLIANCE EDUCATION FUND | $75,000 |
| GRID ALTERNATIVES COLORADO | $50,000 |
| CSU CENTER FOR COLLABORATIVE CONSERVATION | $50,000 |
| NEVADA ALLIANCE | $50,000 |
| GLEN CANYON INSTITUTE-RETURNING RAPIDS PROJECT | $50,000 |
| KITCHEN TABLE ADVISORS | $50,000 |
| ONE ARIZONA | $50,000 |
| STATE LEADERSHIP PROJECT (COS) | $50,000 |
| TREES WATER PEOPLE | $50,000 |
| CALCAN (EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE) | $50,000 |
| SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND NETWORKS | $50,000 |
| NBB CO-WORKER FUND | $50,000 |
| THE MARSHALL PROJECT | $50,000 |
| CSU CLIMATE INITIATIVE (CSU FOUNDATION) | $50,000 |
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 (FY19–23, $105k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 90% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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 +73% since the first grant, against +24% for the ones you funded once.
84 repeat relationships — 22 still active in FY2024, 62 since wound down; 48 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, 39% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.0M 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
- NYNATIONAL YOUNG FARMERS COALITION INC5× · 2020–2024 · $235k · revenue +73%
- AWAmerican Whitewater5× · 2020–2024 · $226k · revenue +36%
- OAOutdoor Alliance6× · 2017–2022 · $225k · revenue +92%
Funded once
- TOTEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUNDone grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue -54%
- VLVOTO LATINO INCone grant, 2020 · $100k · revenue -30%
- MFMI FAMILIA EN ACCIONgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +60%
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.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
The Boulder Watershed Collective is a 501c3 non-profit stakeholder-driven organization established to address forested watershed health,resiliency and stewardship. We have three program areas: ClimateAdaptation and Resilience Watershed…
Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…
To partner with individuals and organizations to access, organize, and share data that inspires action that restores our environment.
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.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.
To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
To empower frontline communities to lead nature-based solutions that advance climate justice, ecosystem restoration, and resilient livelihoods through connecting locally-led initiatives to funding, markets, and technical support.
Taproot Earth works with communities to support strategies around the use of water, energy and land.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Conservation Colorado Education Fund and the most unlike its peers is Tomkat Ranch Educational Foundation. 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 20 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 5% 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.
134 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. 134 of the 208 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 NATIONAL YOUNG FARMERS COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds American Whitewater ↗
- Who funds Outdoor Alliance ↗
- Who funds LAND CORE ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN RIVERS INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY BUILDERS ↗
- Who funds CERES INC ↗
- Who funds MAD AGRICULTURE ↗
- Who funds COLORADO OPEN LANDS ↗
- Who funds THE MARSHALL PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds TREES WATER AND PEOPLE ↗
- Who funds QUIVIRA COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds COALITION FOR THE POUDRE RIVER WATERSHED ↗
- Who funds SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Earth Island Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds AS YOU SOW ↗
- Who funds Western Resource Advocates ↗
- Who funds GEORGIA ALLIANCE EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds STATE LEADERSHIP PROJECT ↗
- Who funds TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds VOTO LATINO INC ↗
- Who funds MI FAMILIA EN ACCION ↗
- Who funds MULTIPLIER ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WATER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Colorado Clean Energy Cluster ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION COLORADO EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds ECDYSIS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FOREST FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CYCLES OF CHANGE ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA FARMLINK ↗
- Who funds THE MOSAIC PROJECT ↗
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: Patagoniaorg · Impactassetsinc · Clif Family Foundation · The Schmidt Family Foundation · Resources Legacy Fund · Walton Family Foundation Inc · The Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment Inc · Community Foundation for San Benito County · Gates Family Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Marin Community 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 Mighty Arrow Family 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.
- Woodwell Climate Research Center Inc — 11% of income from government
- American Whitewater — 5% of income from government
- Ceres 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 Mighty Arrow Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Mighty Arrow Family 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.