· Private foundation
S B 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 $10k5 grants · $25k
- $10k–50k38 grants · $440k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| RIO GRANDE RETURN | $40,000 |
| BORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORK | $20,000 |
| THE GLORY HALL | $15,000 |
| DISCOVERY SOUTHEAST | $15,000 |
| AWARE | $15,000 |
| STANDEARTH | $15,000 |
| TRAIL MIX | $10,000 |
| GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE PARTNERS | $10,000 |
| INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK | $10,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS | $10,000 |
| GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE | $10,000 |
| PROTECT OUR WINTERS | $10,000 |
| ALASKA HEAT SMART | $10,000 |
| THINK NEW MEXICO | $10,000 |
| BLACK MESA TRUST | $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 (FY19–24, $140k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, 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.
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 +56% since the first grant, against +46% for the ones you funded once.
65 repeat relationships — 35 still active in FY2024, 30 since wound down; 8 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, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $75k 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
- RGRIO GRANDE RETURN4× · 2020–2024 · $135k · revenue +265%
- CVCONSERVATION VOTERS NEW MEXICO EDUCATION FUND8× · 2017–2024 · $85k · revenue +98%
- BRBORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORK6× · 2019–2024 · $75k · revenue +155%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2022 · $20k
- CSCIUDAD SWCDone grant, 2021 · $15k
- BLBLACK LIVES MATTER GLOBAL NETWORK FDNone grant, 2021 · $15k
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.
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…
Greater yellowstone coalition works with all people to protect the lands, waters, and wildlife of the greater yellowstone ecosystem, now and for future generations.
Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…
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…
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.
Educate the public on forest conservation issues in New Mexico
Nature and culture international conserves biologically diverse landscapes in latin america, in concert with local cultures, for the well-being of the planet.
Wildlands Network works to reconnect, restore and rewild North America so that life-in all its diversity-can thrive.
The water protector legal collective is an indigenous-led legal nonprofit that provides support and advocacy for indigenous peoples and original nations, the earth, and climate justice movements.
The Boulder Watershed Collective is a 501c3 non-profit stakeholder-driven organization established to address forested watershed health,resiliency and stewardship. We have three program areas: ClimateAdaptation and Resilience Watershed…
Cuenca los ojos works to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the us/mexican borderlands through land protection, habitat restoration and wildlife reintroduction.
Washington wild protects and restores wild lands and waters in washington state through advocacy, education and civic engagement.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc and the most unlike its peers is Save Our Bosque Task Force. 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 29 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 — 3% 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.
68 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. 68 of the 122 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 RIO GRANDE RETURN ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION VOTERS NEW MEXICO EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds BORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORK ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD INC ↗
- Who funds Black Mesa Trust inc ↗
- Who funds San Juan Citizens Alliance ↗
- Who funds THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC ↗
- Who funds STAND ↗
- Who funds AWARE Inc ↗
- Who funds THINK NEW MEXICO ↗
- Who funds TIDELINES INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds TEWA WOMEN UNITED ↗
- Who funds ALASKA DISCOVERY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds GRAND STAIRCASE - ESCALANTE PARTNERS INC ↗
- Who funds NEW MEXICO WILDLIFE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THE GRAND CANYON TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds JUNEAU COOPERATIVE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY ↗
- Who funds SITKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK ↗
- Who funds SOLACE SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES ↗
- Who funds BOLD FUTURES NM ↗
- Who funds HOPEWORKS ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT NORTHWEST HAWAII ALASKA INDIANA AND KENTUCKY ↗
- Who funds RIO GRANDE AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE ↗
- Who funds ECOFLIGHT ↗
- Who funds THE LOVELAND FOUNDATION 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: Santa Fe Community Foundation · Carroll Petrie Foundation · Rasmuson Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Marshall L and Perrine D McCune Charitable Foundation Inc · Resources Legacy Fund · Juneau Community Foundation · National Forest Foundation · The Alaska Community Foundation · The Pew Charitable Trusts · Nusenda Foundation · Brindle 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 S B 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.
- Wild Salmon Center — 49% of income from government
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 0% 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 S B Foundation?
Find your warmest path to S B 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.