· Public charity
Riverpsykhe Inc
The Organization's mission is to promote social welfare by seeking to effect the liberation of consciousness in healthful and fluid relationship to self, other, and the natural world.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 3 grants below total $105,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $113,655 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $8,655 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–50k2 grants · $20k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $85k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| New Approach Advocacy Fund | $85,000 |
| MAPS | $10,000 |
| Sheri Eckert Foundation | $10,000 |
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 (FY21–21, $93k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 10% of Riverpsykhe Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 9% of the giving stays in WA; read by stated purpose it is 13% — more of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +40% since the first grant, against +37% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 1 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, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k 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
- MAMULTIDISCIPLINARY ASSOCIATION FOR PSYCHEDELIC STUDIES INC4× · 2020–2024 · $797k · revenue -73%
- NANEW APPROACH ADVOCACY FUND2× · 2022–2024 · $185k · revenue -77%
- NANATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND INC2× · 2020–2021 · $112k · revenue +50%
Funded once
- DPDRUG POLICY ACTIONgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $250k · revenue +216%
- UIUSONA INSTITUTE INCone grant, 2020 · $150k · revenue -61%
- HRHeffter Research Institute Incone grant, 2020 · $150k · revenue -99%
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 union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan "fact tank" that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. Pew Research Center generates a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue and…
We promote reciprocity in the psychedelic community, and support the protection of sacred plants and cultural traditions. We advance psychedelic justice through curating critical conversations and uplifting the voices of women, queer…
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
The Breakthrough Institute is a research center that identifies and promotes technological solutions to environmental and human development challenges.
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
Our mission is to build a unique institute that bridges basic research and drug discovery, and that attracts the best and brightest scientists, physicians and students to work together synergistically to find cures for neglected human…
Our mission is to accelerate scientific progress, understand the root causes of disease, and narrow the gap between discoveries and impact on patients.
Arbor research collaborative for health is committed to improving patient care through research that shapes medical policies and practice. in particular, arbor research conducts health outcomes research on chronic disease and end-stage…
The pacific institute creates and advances solutions to the worlds most pressing water challenges.
Sustainable Path Foundation promotes sustainability and health in the Puget Sound region through collaborative approaches informed by scientific understanding and systems thinking.
Using legal advocacy to make advances in science and technology safer for people and the planet.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Inquiring Systems Inc and the most unlike its peers is Seattle University. 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 20 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
26 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. 26 of the 36 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 MULTIDISCIPLINARY ASSOCIATION FOR PSYCHEDELIC STUDIES INC ↗
- Who funds DRUG POLICY ACTION ↗
- Who funds NEW APPROACH ADVOCACY FUND ↗
- Who funds USONA INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds Heffter Research Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Found ↗
- Who funds NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND INC ↗
- Who funds FAR AWAY PROJECTS ↗
- Who funds PSFC ↗
- Who funds DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER OF KITSAP ↗
- Who funds NYU LANGONE HOSPITALS ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE SAN DIEGO MOBILIZATION FUND ↗
- Who funds Occidental Arts and Ecology Center ↗
- Who funds SEATTLE UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds PROPEL NONPROFITS ↗
- Who funds BELOVED BUILDERS INC ↗
- Who funds Ecology Action of Santa Cruz ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL GOOD FUND INC ↗
- Who funds INQUIRING SYSTEMS INC ↗
- Who funds THE SHIPIBO-CONIBO CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Alchemy Community Therapy Center ↗
- Who funds BMORE INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds SEATTLE AIKIKAI ↗
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: Riverstyx Foundation · The San Diego Foundation · The Joe & Sandy Samberg Foundation Inc · Impactassetsinc · National Philanthropic Trust · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · American Endowment Foundation · Network for Good · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Riverpsykhe Inc 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.
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% 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 Riverpsykhe Inc?
Find your warmest path to Riverpsykhe Inc 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.