Skip to content

· Private foundation

Oilean Easa 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.

$374k
Granted FY2025still arriving
15
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$100k
Largest
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 2025.

Environment$1.5MEducation$71kHealth$50kReligion$30kInternational$11kArts & Culture$10kYouth Development$10kAnimals$1kOther$0
02FY2025 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k6 grants · $17k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $97k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $260k
$10,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$5.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$100,000
Individual grant recipient$60,000
GLENCREE PEACE AND RECONCILIATION C$50,000
BLOOD CENTER UNITED$50,000
LAUREL CANYON LAND TRUST$35,000
MISSION DOLORES$30,000
PURE MILE PROJECT WASTE AMENITY PRO$12,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
BIRDWATCH IRELAND$10,000
LOS ANGELES WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL$5,000
ST JOSEPH INDIAN SCHOOL$5,000
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND$2,500
COVENANT HOUSE$2,500
NATURE CONSERVANCY$2,000
Individual grant recipient$135
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.

US giving: 29% of grant dollars ($470k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 71% that went abroad ($1.2M) is mapped below.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY23–23, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%FARHANG FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%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.

Beyond the US: 71% of all-years giving ($1.2M)

5 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
Ireland$1.1M · 25 grants
Norway$50k · 1 grant
United Kingdom$35k · 4 grants
Sierra Leone$8k · 1 grant
Switzerland$1k · 1 grant
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

75%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.2M · 14 repeat orgs$402k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +21% since the first grant, against +18% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
23

Total granted

$1.2M
$210k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+21%
+18%

Still filing today

29%
26%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 48% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $192k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentPhilanthropyHealthEducationInternationalHuman ServicesOther
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

  • GP
    GLENCREE PEACE AND RECONCILIATION C
    5× · 2021–2025 · $712k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    4× · 2021–2025 · $152k
  • BI
    BIRDWATCH IRELAND
    8× · 2017–2025 · $105k

Funded once

  • CF
    CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN IRAN
    one grant, 2022 · $50k
  • TM
    THE MALALA FUND
    one grant, 2024 · $50k · revenue -11%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $12k
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
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
2
African Wildlife Foundation Inc

Awf's mission is to ensure wildlife and wild lands thrive in modern africa. we work to equip african governments, institutions, business, and communities with the tools, insights, and support they need to define, own, and realize a…

Animals
3
Project Drawdown

Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…

Education
4
Natural Resources Defense Council Inc

We safeguard the earth: its people, its plants and animals, and (see schedule o) the natural systems on which all life depends. we work to restore the integrity of the elements that sustain life - air, land, and water - to defend…

Environment
5
International Snow Leopard Trust

The international snow leopard trust aims to ethically conserve snow leopards and their high mountain ecosystems through partnerships with indigenous peoples and local communities, and through research to improve the understanding of snow…

Animals
6
Ocean Conservancy

Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.

Environment
7
The International Dark-Sky Association Inc

Darksky international restores the nighttime environment and protects communities from the harmful effects of light pollution through outreach, advocacy, and conservation.

—
8
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Foundation

To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.

Animals
9
Chile-California Council

The Chile-California Council is a San Francisco-based nonprofit dedicated to developing and promoting joint endeavors and cooperative relations between Chile and California, as well as individuals, legal entities and other institutions in…

International
10
Panthera Corporation

Panthera's mission is the conservation of the world's 40 wild cat species, many of which are endangered or threatened. panthera develops, implements and oversees wild cat conservation strategies on a global scale.

Animals
11
Blue World Foundation Inc

To stabilize the population of marine species in danger, especially sharks and rays in the caribbean of guatemala; through science and community strengthening which will provide the creation of alternative livelihoods, which eventually…

Environment
12
International Conservation Caucus Network

To advance conservation governance through political will and to provide "on the ground" solutions to ensure sustained economic benefits while managing the earth's natural resource wealth for future generations.

Unclassified
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated; the most unlike its peers is Congo Impact. 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

12 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. 12 of the 43 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
7/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GLENCREE PEACE AND RECONCILIATION C: $711,701 · OtherGLENCREE PEACE AND RECONCILIATION CIndividual grant recipient: $152,235 · OtherIndividual grant recipientBIRDWATCH IRELAND: $104,737 · OtherBIRDWATCH IRELANDIndividual grant recipient: $100,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientGLENBEIGH COMMUNITY COUNCIL: $73,514 · OtherCENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN IRAN: $50,000 · Other+27 more: $262,200 · Other+27 moreLAUREL CANYON LAND TRUST: $55,000 · EnvironmentWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $7,500 · Environment+1 more: $2,000 · EnvironmentBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $50,000 · HealthTHE MALALA FUND: $50,000 · EducationLOS ANGELES WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL AND TOWN HALL: $10,000 · InternationalFARHANG FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Human ServicesLifebox Foundation Inc: $1,000 · PhilanthropyGOFUNDMEORG: $500 · PhilanthropyTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $1,000 · Animals
Other$1,454,387Environment$64,500Health$50,000Education$50,000International$10,000Human Services$10,000Philanthropy$1,500Animals$1,000

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 budgetLAUREL CANYON LAND TRUST: $55,000 over 4y, 4.2% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE MALALA FUND: $50,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetLOS ANGELES WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL AND TOWN HALL: $10,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetFARHANG FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCONGO IMPACT: $10,000 over 1y, 8.0% of budgetWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $7,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $5,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLifebox Foundation Inc: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGOFUNDMEORG: $500 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds LAUREL CANYON LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC ↗
  • Who funds THE MALALA FUND ↗
  • Who funds LOS ANGELES WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL AND TOWN HALL ↗
  • Who funds FARHANG FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds CONGO IMPACT ↗
  • Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
  • Who funds Lifebox Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ↗
  • Who funds GOFUNDMEORG ↗

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.

Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust IncIN10× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Oilean Easa Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Oilean Easa Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Oilean Easa Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Oilean Easa 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.

    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 43 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Oilean Easa’s filings →

    More from the funding graph