Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Parley Foundation

To develop, organize, and implement various "parley" conferences.

$132k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20182024.

Environment$380kAnimals$100kPhilanthropy$62kArts & Culture$56kEducation$50kScience & Tech$25kHuman Services$14k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 3 grants below total $125,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $132,245 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $7,245 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

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$192k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SUSTAINABLE COASTLINES$50,000
PARLEY SOUTH AFRICIA$50,000
MEGALAB SERVICES$25,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY22–22, $14k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%SOCIAL SPLIT FOUNDATION: $14k → 11%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

03Your field

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.

1
Schmidt Ocean Institute
Science & Tech
2
Global Foundation for Oceanographic & Atmospheric Research Inc
Philanthropy
3
Oceanit Research Foundation
Science & Tech
4
Ocean Research and Educational
Science & Tech
5
Green Ocean Foundation
Philanthropy
6
OurBlueSeas
Philanthropy
7
The Coral Reef and Marine Science Foundation Inc C/O James Bildner
8
Sea Change Foundation
Human Services
9
Ocean Conservancy

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

Environment
10
Clean Reefs
Environment
11
Khaled Bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation
Environment
12
Ocean Alliance Project

Protecting and promoting the marine biodiversity of Hawai'i through coral restoration, ecological monitoring, regenerative tourism, and cultural integration

Science & Tech

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Oceanic Preservation Society and the most unlike its peers is Blue Ocean Foundation. 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

9 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 of the 10 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Oceanic Preservation Society — $185,000 · EnvironmentOceanic Preservation SocietySUSTAINABLE COASTLINES HAWAI'I — $150,000 · EnvironmentSUSTAINABLE COASTLINES HAWAI'I+1 more — $10,000 · EnvironmentSEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY — $100,000 · AnimalsSEA SHEPHERD CONSERVAT…EARTH LEAGUE INTERNATIONAL — $35,000 · AnimalsEARTH LEAGUE INTERNATI…BLUE OCEAN FOUNDATION — $62,469 · OtherBLUE OCEAN FOUNDAT…PARLEY SOUTH AFRICIA — $50,000 · OtherPARLEY SOUTH AFRIC…SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION — $55,555 · Arts & CultureSMITHSONI…MEGA LAB — $25,000 · Science & TechSOCIAL SPIN FOUNDATION — $13,999 · Human Services
Environment$345,000Animals$135,000Other$112,469Arts & Culture$55,555Science & Tech$25,000Human Services$13,999

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetOceanic Preservation Society — $185,000 over 2y, 8.3% of budgetSUSTAINABLE COASTLINES HAWAI'I — $150,000 over 3y, 6.4% of budgetSEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY — $100,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetSMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION — $55,555 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEARTH LEAGUE INTERNATIONAL — $35,000 over 1y, 5.8% of budgetMEGA LAB — $25,000 over 1y, 31% of budgetSOCIAL SPIN FOUNDATION — $13,999 over 1y, 6.0% of budgetPROTECT OUR WINTERS — $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budget
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.

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Parley 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.

2024
2021222324
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%your share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%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 · 0–15%
    typical government reliance, FY2024

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 10 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

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

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph