· Private foundation
Ph 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 $10k1 grant · $164
- $10k–50k1 grant · $34k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $404k
- $250k+2 grants · $1.6M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WIND RIVER TRIBAL BUFFALO INITIATIVE | $1,200,000 |
| CONSERVATION LANDS FOUNDATION | $400,000 |
| WEST BERKELEY FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNITY | $110,000 |
| THE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION | $75,000 |
| EQUAL JUSTICE WORKS | $69,000 |
| NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| BREAST CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS | $34,250 |
| WIND RIVER TRIBAL BUFFALO INITIATIVE | $164 |
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 (FY17–21, $320k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% 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.
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 +46% since the first grant, against +21% for the ones you funded once.
15 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 12 since wound down; 5 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, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $404k 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
- WRWIND RIVER TRIBAL BUFFALO INITIATIVE3× · 2022–2024 · $1.4M · revenue ×47 · 99% of their budget
- CLConservation Lands Foundation2× · 2023–2024 · $650k · revenue +46%
- FLFRESH LIFE FOUNDATION5× · 2017–2021 · $290k · revenue +27% · 41% of their budget
Funded once
- OVOWENS VALLEY INDIAN WATER COMMISSIONone grant, 2023 · $175k
- FRF R E E INTERNATIONAL INCone grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue -24% · 28% of their budget
- CFCenter for Popular Research Education and Policyone grant, 2023 · $100k · revenue +21%
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 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.
The Center for Environmental Law & Policy is a statewide organization whose mission is to protect, preserve and restore Washington's waters through education, advocacy, policy reform, and public interest litigation.
Legal Link removes legal barriers that prolong poverty by adding critically needed capacity to the legal ecosystem.
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
Environmental Law Foundation's (ELF) mission is to protect the environment, communities, and consumers against harmful toxics and other environmental harms. Our work consistently improves environmental quality for those most at risk by…
Create and publish educational materials, conduct professional development, promote awareness, and sponsor research on the spectacular biological diversity of the State of CA.
A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…
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…
Serve as a partner, educator, and guide for philanthropy in reimagining practices that advance a thriving and just world.
Provide scientific support and tools for decision making and communication through collaborative efforts.
Our mission is to fight against fossil fuel executives and industries that have turned our communities into dumping grounds for toxic waste, poisoning our air, water, lan, and bodies. We organize to oppose giant oil refineries, dirty…
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Park Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Grand Teton National Park 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 27 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) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 42% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% 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.
25 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. 25 of the 31 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
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 WIND RIVER TRIBAL BUFFALO INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds Conservation Lands Foundation ↗
- Who funds FRESH LIFE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MANIFESTWORKS ↗
- Who funds BREAST CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds Center For Youth Development Through Law ↗
- Who funds BRIGHTER BEGINNINGS ↗
- Who funds EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds WEST BERKELEY FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNITY ↗
- Who funds F R E E INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Center for Popular Research Education and Policy ↗
- Who funds IMPACT JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds EQUAL JUSTICE WORKS ↗
- Who funds SODA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds Museum of Childrens Art ↗
- Who funds Southern Exposure ↗
- Who funds YOUTH UPRISING ↗
- Who funds OREGON WILDLIFE HERITAGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Berkeley Public Schools Fund ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA SHAKESPEARE THEATER ↗
- Who funds POLLINATOR PROJECT ROGUE VALLEY ↗
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: The San Francisco Foundation · East Bay Community Foundation · Impactassetsinc · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Patagoniaorg · The California Endowment · Marin Community Foundation · Tides Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust
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 Ph 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.
- Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation — 16% 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 Ph Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Ph 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.