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

· Public charity

Point Reyes Bird Observatory

Point blue's mission is to conserve birds, other wildlife and ecosystems through science, restoration, outreach and partnerships.

$932k
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$196k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your 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 FY2020–2025.

Environment$586kAnimals$210kFood & Nutrition$125kEducation$119kArts & Culture$8k
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 10 grants below total $674,062 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $932,491 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $258,429 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 $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $103k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $563k
$33,470
Median grant
2
States reached
$26M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SIERRA FOOTHIL CONSERVANCY$196,149
YUROK TRIBE$125,000
SACRAMENTO VALLEY CONSERVATION$123,042
CHICO STATE ENTERPRISES$118,876
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO$33,470
WHITE BUFFALO LAND TRUST$29,733
SISKIYOU LAND TRUST$17,718
UC MERCED$12,546
PRESCOTT COLLEGE INC$10,000
NEW VILLAGE OAKLAND (THE NEW VILLAGE)$7,528
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:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%PRESCOTT COLLEGE INC: $10k → 14%NEW VILLAGE OAKLAND (THE NEW VILLAGE): $8k → 10%ZERO FOODPRINT: $35k → 10%CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: $33k → 12%THE AUDOBON SOCIETY - CALIFORNIA: $147k → 12%A&S ENTERPRISES: $89k → 14%CHICO STATE ENTERPRISES: $119k → 15%SIERRA FOOTHIL CONSERVANCY: $196k → 15%SISKIYOU LAND TRUST: $18k → 16%YUROK TRIBE: $125k → 17%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $20k → 10%THE AUDOBON SOCIETY - CALIFORNIA: $63k → 12%SACRAMENTO VALLEY CONSERVATION: $123k → 12%DUCKS UNLIMITED: $20k → 12%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.

Grants abroad, by region — $213k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 2 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

North America (Canada and Mexico)$123k · 58% · 5 grants

Stated purpose: HABITAT FOR SHOREBIRDS IN GUATEMALA · HABITAT FOR SHOREBIRDS IN CANADA · HABITAT FOR SHOREBIRDS IN PANAMA

South America$90k · 42% · 4 grants

Stated purpose: HABITAT FOR SHOREBIRDS IN ECUADOR · HABITAT FOR SHOREBIRDS IN COLUMBIA · HABITAT FOR SHOREBIRDS IN CHILE

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.

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
Siskiyou Land Conservancy

The Siskiyou Land Conservancy is a state and federally approved non-profit organization that assists landowners who want to protect the natural values of their land, either through purchase or establishment of conservation easements.

Environment
2
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
3
California Wildlife Foundation

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

Animals
4
Conservation Farms & Ranches

Preserving and enhancing the habitat of wildlife, such as sandhill cranes, waterfowl, raptors, which habitat expenses are supported by agricultural activities.

Housing & Shelter
5
Foothill Conservancy

To protect, restore, and sustain the natural and human environment in Amador and Calaveras counties for the benefit of current and future generations.

Environment
6
Cascadia Wildlands

Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia's wild ecosystems in the forests,in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…

Environment
7
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
8
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
9
Sierra Watch

Sierra watch secures conservation outcomes to protect the natural resources, mountain communities, and timeless values of the tahoe sierra.

Environment
10
The Land Trust for Santa Barbara County

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

Environment
11
Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center Inc

CSERC protects water, wildlife, and wild places of the Northern Yosemite region.

Unclassified
12
Land Trust of Santa Cruz County

Land trust of santa cruz county (the organization) was incorporated in california as a not-for-profit corporation in 1978. the mission of the organization is to protect, care for, and connect all people to the vibrant natural and working…

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sacramento Valley Conservancy and the most unlike its peers is The New Village. 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

11 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. 11 of the 15 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)
11/11
Grantees still filing
6/11
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

MORRO COAST AUDUBON SOCIETY — $210,087 · EnvironmentMORRO COAST AUDUBON SOCIETYSierra Foothill Conservancy — $196,149 · EnvironmentSierra Foothill ConservancyWHITE BUFFALO LAND TRUST — $29,733 · EnvironmentWHITE BUFFALO LAND TRUSTDucks Unlimited Inc — $20,000 · EnvironmentYUROK TRIBE — $125,000 · OtherYUROK TRIBESACRAMENTO VALLEY CONSERVANCY — $123,042 · OtherSACRAMENTO VALLEY CONSERVANCYA&S ENTERPRISES — $89,064 · OtherA&S ENTERPRISESCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO — $33,470 · OtherCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY — $19,897 · OtherTHE SISKIYOU LAND TRUST — $17,718 · Other+2 more — $22,546 · OtherChico State Enterprises — $118,876 · EducationChico State …ZERO FOODPRINT — $34,590 · Food & NutritionThe New Village — $7,528 · Arts & Culture
Environment$455,969Other$430,737Education$118,876Food & Nutrition$34,590Arts & Culture$7,528

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 budgetMORRO COAST AUDUBON SOCIETY — $210,087 over 2y, 65% of budgetSierra Foothill Conservancy — $196,149 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetChico State Enterprises — $118,876 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetZERO FOODPRINT — $34,590 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetDucks Unlimited Inc — $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE SISKIYOU LAND TRUST — $17,718 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetPRESCOTT COLLEGE INC — $10,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetThe New Village — $7,528 over 1y, 7.0% 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.

ImpactassetsincDonor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
ImpactassetsincMD13.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Impactassetsinc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Point Reyes Bird Observatory 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%5%19%42%75%your share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
    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 15 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