· Private foundation
Purple Crayon Foundation
Its FY2021 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 FY2019–2021.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2021
- Under $10k3 grants · $12k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $116k
- $50k–250k8 grants · $405k
- $250k+1 grant · $250k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FDN | $250,000 |
| MINORITY VETERANS OF AMERICA | $55,000 |
| BELLEVUE COLLEGE FDN FBO KBCS | $50,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FDN | $50,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FDN | $50,000 |
| WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FDN | $50,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FDN | $50,000 |
| TECHNOLOGY ACCESS FDN | $50,000 |
| RENTON REGIONAL COMMUNITY FDN | $20,000 |
| GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS | $20,000 |
| NAT'L OLDTIME FIDDLERS | $15,750 |
| PINK BERETS | $15,000 |
| TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND | $14,000 |
| IBMA FOUNDATION | $10,750 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY19–21) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 98% of your 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 +23% since the first grant, against +5% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2021, 2 since wound down; 13 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (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 FY2021, 3% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $733k 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
- PVPEACETREES VIETNAM2× · 2019–2020 · $33k · revenue +91%
- GPGLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS2× · 2019–2021 · $25k · revenue +23%
- UIUPLIFT INTERNATIONAL INC2× · 2019–2020 · $13k
Funded once
- CFCAURA FUTURES INCone grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue +5%
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.
Fsc i&p promotes environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world's forests. this mission aligns with the forest stewardship council (fsc), its network of offices, and other organizations.…
Global Forest Generation restores and protects forest ecosystems in partnership with grassroots leaders and local communities across vast landscapes which play a critical role in preserving water, protecting biodiversity, storing carbon,…
To restore habitat, water quality and native species in the puget sound
Creating a greener, healthier, more equitable, and better Washington for all through community outreach, network building, and advocacy for conservation and outdoor recreation funding.
Alaska Whale Foundation is dedicated to marine mammal conservation through research monitoring and education.
Blue forest is a non-profit conservation finance organization. we bring people, finance and science together to restore and protect our forests, watersheds, ecosystems and communities.
Iucn-us fund builds bridges between us donors and iucn by catalyzing, accelerating, funding and promoting iucn's work - conserving nature and natural resources in the united states and throughout the world.
Amazon conservation unites science, people, and innovation to protect the amazon - the greatest wild forest on earth. as guardians of the most iconic forest on the planet, we bring together the power of the latest science and technology…
To sustain, restore, and enhance the nation's fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats.
Preserve in perpetuity the natural habitats, rural landscapes, and open spaces of the great peninsula of washington's puget sound.
To conserve the unique character of tennessee's natural and historic landscapes and sites for future generations.
To protect the rainforest and advance the rights of Indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with Indigenous communities in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability, and the preservation of the Amazon Basin's…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Trust for Public Land and the most unlike its peers is Uplift International Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
16 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. 16 of the 19 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 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MINORITY VETERANS OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TECHNOLOGY ACCESS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PEACETREES VIETNAM ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS ↗
- Who funds RENTON REGIONAL COMMUNITY FNDN ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL OLDTIME FIDDLERS INC ↗
- Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
- Who funds UPLIFT INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds THE IBMA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds CAURA FUTURES INC ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON WILD ↗
- Who funds NORTHWEST FOLKLIFE ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN BANJO MUSEUM INC ↗
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: Seattle Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Purple Crayon 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.
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.