· Private foundation
Riverstyx 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 $10k12 grants · $48k
- $10k–50k26 grants · $506k
- $50k–250k9 grants · $647k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Youth Passageways | $183,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $82,000 |
| LIGARE INC | $80,000 |
| CLUSTERBUSTERS INC | $52,000 |
| JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMEN | $50,000 |
| Netherlands-America Foundation | $50,000 |
| Stichting Transnational Institute | $50,000 |
| Indigenous Medicine Conservation Fu | $50,000 |
| Indigenous Peyote Conservation Init | $50,000 |
| ECOLOGY ACTION OF SANTA CRUZ | $40,000 |
| Fireside Project | $40,000 |
| SSDP Students for Sensible Drug Pol | $35,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $34,678 |
| HEALING ADVOCACY FUND | $30,000 |
| MAPS | $26,000 |
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 (FY17–23, $362k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 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.
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 +45% since the first grant, against +14% for the ones you funded once.
85 repeat relationships — 18 still active in FY2024, 67 since wound down; 28 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, 38% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $744k 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 INC2× · 2017–2018 · $756k · revenue +42%
- WHWOLF HAVEN INTERNATIONAL6× · 2017–2023 · $495k · revenue +14%
- SSTAND5× · 2017–2021 · $417k · revenue +157%
Funded once
- OCOUR CHILDREN'S TRUSTone grant, 2018 · $250k · revenue -81%
- FMFootloose Montanaone grant, 2023 · $115k · revenue -69% · 36% of their budget
- FWFAIR WORLD PROJECT INCone grant, 2021 · $110k
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.
Washington wild protects and restores wild lands and waters in washington state through advocacy, education and civic engagement.
Creating a greener, healthier, more equitable, and better Washington for all through community outreach, network building, and advocacy for conservation and outdoor recreation funding.
Protecting our shrub-steppe and connecting people to this vanishing landscape.
Western rivers conservancy's mission is to protect outstanding river ecosystems in the western united states. continued on schedule o.we acquire land to conserve critical habitat, provide public access for compatible use and enjoyment, and…
10,000 Years Institute evaluates the ecological effects of human activities on natural environments, and promotes the maintenance and restoration of ecological integrity through the integration of reliable scientific information, sound…
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.…
Support ecosystem-based wildlife management by increasing public awareness of wildlife issues, responding to information requests, advocating for science-based wildlife habitat management through proposal and comment submissions, and…
Connect conservationists and supporters, deploy resources to the field, provide conservationists with tools and support they need to succeed.
The Clean Energy Transition Institute (CETI) is an independent, nonpartisan research and analysis nonprofit whose mission is to accelerate an equitable clean energy transition in the Northwest.
Wildearth guardians works to protect and restore the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the american west.
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…
Futurewise works throughout Washington state to encourage healthy, equitable and opportunity-rich communities, and to protect our most valuable farmlands, forests and water resources through wise land use policies and practices.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Esalen Institute 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.
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 25 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) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 9% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.6% 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.
162 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. 162 of the 265 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 Heffter Research Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds MULTIDISCIPLINARY ASSOCIATION FOR PSYCHEDELIC STUDIES INC ↗
- Who funds INDIGENOUS MEDICINE CONSERVATION FUND ↗
- Who funds WOLF HAVEN INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds STAND ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA WOLF CENTER ↗
- Who funds NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND INC ↗
- Who funds COMPASS HEALTH ↗
- Who funds OUR CHILDREN'S TRUST ↗
- Who funds Yoga Behind Bars ↗
- Who funds WILD CANID SURVIVAL AND RESEARCH CENTER INC DBA ENDANGERED WOLF CENTER ↗
- Who funds Restoring Lifeways ↗
- Who funds Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON INNOCENCE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds LIGARE INC ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION NW ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds DEL E WEBB CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL JUSTICE FUND NORTHWEST ↗
- Who funds Footloose Montana ↗
- Who funds BELOVED BUILDERS INC ↗
- Who funds Sightline Institute ↗
- Who funds FAIR WORLD PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds WOMEN MAKE MOVIES INC ↗
- Who funds CLUSTERBUSTERS INC CO VIRGINIA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LLC ↗
- Who funds Fuse Washington ↗
- Who funds University of Arizona Foundation ↗
- Who funds LIVING WITH WOLVES LTD ↗
- Who funds DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER OF KITSAP ↗
- Who funds Wickenburg Community Hospital Foundation ↗
- Who funds Occidental Arts and Ecology Center ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds CHUCKANUT HEALTH FOUNDATION ↗
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: Whatcom Community Foundation · The Norcliffe Foundation · Puget Sound Energy Foundation · Rangeland Foundation · Chuckanut Health Foundation · Seattle Foundation · North Sound Accountable Community of Health · PeaceHealth · Mary H Storer Foundation · Mount Baker Foundation · The Joe & Sandy Samberg Foundation Inc · The Skagit Community 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 Riverstyx 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.
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 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 Riverstyx Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Riverstyx 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.