Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersMostly funded, not a grantmaker — see who funds it →
Plinth

· Public charity

Peninsula Open Space Trust

Post protects open space on the peninsula and in the south bay for the benefit of all.

$9.2M
Granted FY2025still arriving
24
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$5.3M
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
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 FY2017–2025.

Environment$19MRecreation & Sports$5.3MPublic Benefit$4.7MHousing & Shelter$2.9MEducation$484kCommunity Improvement$102kFood & Nutrition$69kArts & Culture$51kOther$0
02FY2025 · 24 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 24 grants below total $6,466,125 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $9,209,125 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $2,743,000 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $29k
  • $10k–50k13 grants · $197k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $475k
  • $250k+2 grants · $5.8M
$13,837
Median grant
2
States reached
$374M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO PARKS DEPARTMENT$5,265,188
THE CONSERVATION FUND$500,000
CLIMATE RESILIENT COMMUNITIES$185,000
SANTA CLARA VALLEY OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY$100,000
SAN MATEO RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT$80,000
GREEN FOOTHILLS$60,000
AMAH MUTSUN LAND TRUST$50,000
TOGETHER BAY AREA$35,000
SANTA CLARA VALLEY HABITAT AGENCY$25,000
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF LAND TRUSTS$25,000
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS$15,000
MUWEKMA OHLONE PRESERVATION FOUNDATION THE$13,837
SAVED BY NATURE$13,000
CANOPY$10,500
PUENTE DE LA COSTA SUR$10,000
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 (FY23–25, $223k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%CLIMATE RESILIENT COMMUNITIES: $185k → 8%NUESTRA CASA DE EAST PALO ALTO: $10k → 8%NUESTRA CASA DE EAST PALO ALTO: $10k → 8%CLIMATE RESILIENT COMMUNITIES: $10k → 8%CLIMATE RESILIENT COMMUNITIES: $8k → 8%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 edge
repeat funding

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.

56%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$18M · 25 repeat orgs$14M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +84% since the first grant, against +41% for the ones you funded once.

25 repeat relationships — 17 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

25
14

Total granted

$18M
$8.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+84%
+41%

Still filing today

76%
79%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 10% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5.8M went to new ones.

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

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentArts & CultureRecreation & SportsHuman ServicesFood & NutritionEmploymentOther

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

  • SF
    SEMPERVIRENS FUND
    4× · 2017–2025 · $2.4M · revenue +180%
  • GF
    Green Foothills Foundation dba Green Foothills
    3× · 2021–2025 · $414k · revenue +47%
  • CF
    Committee for Green Foothills Action
    3× · 2017–2020 · $285k · revenue +43%

Funded once

  • CO
    CITY OF SAN JOSE
    one grant, 2020 · $4.7M
  • ST
    SAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUEgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $2.0M · revenue +47%
  • WH
    WILDLIFE HERITAGE FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $869k · revenue +65%

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

04Your 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
Sustainable Conservation

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…

Environment
2
The Land Trust for Santa Barbara County

To conserve natural resources, agricultural land and open spaces for present and future generations.

Environment
3
Tuolumne River Preservation Trust dba Yosemite Rivers Alliance

At Yosemite Rivers Alliance, we unite conservation and community to protect and restore the three rivers that ?ow through the Yosemite Regionthe Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and Merced.

—
4
California Farmland Trust

The mission of the California Farmland Trust is to help farmers protect the best farmland in the world.

Environment
5
CalWild

The California Wilderness Coalition protects the natural landscapes that make California unique, providing clean air and water, a home to wildlife, and a place for recreation and spiritual renewal.

—
6
Placer Land Trust

Placer Land Trust works with willing landowners and conservation partners to permanently protect and care for natural and agricultural lands in Placer County for current and future generations.

Environment
7
Sequoia Riverlands Trust

We conserve the lands and waters of California's heartland.

Environment
8
John Muir Land Trust prev Muir Heritage Land Trust

The vitality of open spaces is essential to the health of our earth, air, water, native plants, and animals. Our goal is to ensure that the beauty, diversity, and fullness of our wild lands continue to enrich and sustain all generations of…

Environment
9
Northern California Regional Land Trust

The purpose of the organization is to monitor, manage, and preserve conservation easements it stewards in northern california. the organization acquires conservation easements in land exhibiting important natural features to protect and…

Environment
10
Shasta Land Trust

Conserve the beauty, character, and diversity of significant lands in far northern california. currently shasta land trust holds conservation easements that permanently protect about 66,000 acres of land.

Environment
11
California Wildlife Foundation

The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species

Animals
12
California Coastkeeper dba California Coastkeeper Alliance

California Coastkeeper Alliance unites Waterkeeper programs statewide to fight for swimmable, fishable, and drinkable waters for all Californians.

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Land Trust of Santa Cruz County and the most unlike its peers is La Honda 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.

Your grantees are a median of 25 years old; the field is 15. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number23%8%<5yr15%11%5–10yr19%17%10–20yr17%36%20–35yr14%19%35–55yr11%8%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value23%4%<5yr15%5%5–10yr19%5%10–20yr17%24%20–35yr14%23%35–55yr11%39%55yr+

The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 8% of your grantees by number, and just 4% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.0%0/42
the rest of the field
11%
3,722/32,481

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.

04the grantee network

35 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. 35 of the 47 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
15
Early backer (in before they grew)
35/35
Grantees still filing
26/35
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

SANTA CLARA VALLEY HABITAT AGENCY — $6,722,026 · OtherSANTA CLARA VALLEY HABITAT AGENCYCOUNTY OF SAN MATEO PARKS DEPARTMENT — $5,265,188 · OtherCOUNTY OF SAN MATEO PARKS DEPARTMENTCITY OF SAN JOSE — $4,660,000 · OtherCITY OF SAN JOSESANTA CLARA VALLEY OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY — $4,633,500 · OtherSANTA CLARA VALLEY OPEN SPACE AUTHORITYMIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT — $1,646,350 · OtherMIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT+12 more — $1,447,712 · Other+12 moreSEMPERVIRENS FUND — $2,445,990 · EnvironmentSEMPERVIRENS FUNDSAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE — $2,000,000 · EnvironmentSAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUEWILDLIFE HERITAGE FOUNDATION — $869,040 · EnvironmentWILDLIFE HERITAGE FOUNDATI…THE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION — $500,000 · EnvironmentTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NO…SONOMA LAND TRUST — $300,000 · EnvironmentTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND — $300,000 · EnvironmentAmah Mutsun Land Trust — $265,243 · Environment+12 more — $718,761 · Environment+12 moreClimate Resilient Communities — $202,500 · Human ServicesNuestra Casa de East Palo Alto — $20,000 · Human ServicesPUENTE DE LA COSTA SUR — $40,000 · Arts & CultureEPACENTER — $40,000 · Arts & CultureMuwekma Ohlone Tribe Inc — $22,500 · Arts & CultureMUWEKMA OHLONE PRESERVATION FOUNDATION — $13,837 · Arts & CultureChopsticks Alley Art — $5,000 · Arts & CultureSAN MATEO COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION FOUNDATION — $20,000 · Recreation & SportsSilicon Valley Bicycle Coalition — $5,000 · Recreation & SportsPIE RANCH — $21,000 · EmploymentPESCADERO EDUCATION FOUNDATION — $19,500 · Education
Other$24,374,776Environment$7,399,034Human Services$222,500Arts & Culture$121,337Recreation & Sports$25,000Employment$21,000Education$19,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetSEMPERVIRENS FUND — $2,445,990 over 4y, 16% of budgetSAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE — $2,000,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetWILDLIFE HERITAGE FOUNDATION — $869,040 over 1y, 18% of budgetGreen Foothills Foundation dba Green Foothills — $413,750 over 3y, 13% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND — $300,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAmah Mutsun Land Trust — $265,243 over 6y, 2.9% of budgetCALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS — $225,250 over 3y, 3.8% of budgetClimate Resilient Communities — $202,500 over 3y, 6.2% of budgetCalifornia Council of Land Trusts — $147,675 over 7y, 9.5% of budgetCoastside Land Trust — $90,000 over 3y, 2.2% of budgetTOGETHER BAY AREA — $85,000 over 5y, 4.8% of budgetPUENTE DE LA COSTA SUR — $40,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetEPACENTER — $40,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetMULTIPLIER — $37,500 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetSAVED BY NATURE — $33,000 over 3y, 4.7% of budgetGOLDEN GATE NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVANCY — $30,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMuwekma Ohlone Tribe Inc — $22,500 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetPIE RANCH — $21,000 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetCanopy — $20,500 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetNuestra Casa de East Palo Alto — $20,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetSAN MATEO COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION FOUNDATION — $20,000 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetPESCADERO EDUCATION FOUNDATION — $19,500 over 3y, 5.9% of budgetLAND TRUST OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY — $19,136 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSAN BENITO AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST — $15,700 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetNETWORK FOR GOOD — $7,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetChopsticks Alley Art — $5,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetLAND TRUST ALLIANCE INC — $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSilicon Valley Bicycle Coalition — $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The David and Lucile …Silicon Valley Commun…Resources Legacy FundGordon E and Betty I …Sand Hill FoundationTomkat Ranch Educatio…The San Francisco Fou…Atkinson FoundationBothin FoundationPatagoniaorgCommunity Foundation …The Keith Campbell Fo…
The David and Lucile Packard FoundationCA33.8× affinity15 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Resources Legacy Fund · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · Sand Hill Foundation · Tomkat Ranch Educational Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Atkinson Foundation · Bothin Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Community Foundation Santa Cruz County · The Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment Inc

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 Peninsula Open Space Trust 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
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%your 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
    18report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY20–25

    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 47 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    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 camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home
    State money flows
    the interactive map of money crossing state lines