· Private foundation
Seb Charitable Fund
Its FY2025 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 FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k52 grants · $115k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $41k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PARTNERS IN HEALTH | $10,454 |
| ANIMAL CHARITY EVALUATION | $10,454 |
| AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION | $10,300 |
| DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS | $10,150 |
| GOTHAM FOOD PANTRY | $6,060 |
| THE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE | $5,282 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND (EDF) | $5,209 |
| WILD ANIMAL INITIATIVE | $5,192 |
| GIVEWELL | $5,150 |
| INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE | $5,150 |
| EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE TOTAL | $5,150 |
| ORANGUTAN FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL | $5,150 |
| FAUNALYTICS | $5,140 |
| THE HUMANE LEAGUE | $5,108 |
| DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE | $5,025 |
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 (FY17–25, $21k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, 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 +24% since the first grant, against +2% for the ones you funded once.
59 repeat relationships — 44 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k 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
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC9× · 2017–2025 · $115k · revenue +41%
PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION7× · 2019–2025 · $73k · revenue +84%- AWAFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INC9× · 2017–2025 · $72k · revenue +54%
Funded once
- HIHEAF INCone grant, 2018 · $10k
- MFMERCY FOR ANIMALS INCgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $10k · revenue +28%
- TCTHE CLEAR FUNDgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue +130%
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.
To prevent cruelty to animals, we promote enacting and enforcing good public policies. enacting good laws depends upon electing good lawmakers, and we remind voters which candidates care about and support animal issues.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
Animal outlook is a national animal protection organization working to end the abuse of farmed animals using a variety of strategies, including investigations, legal advocacy, corporate and food system reform, and vegan outreach.
Our mission is to act to conserve threatened species and ecosystems worldwide, choosing solutions that are sustainable, based on sound science and take into account human needs.
Wildaid's mission is to inspire change and empower the world to protect wildlife and vital habitats from critical threats.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Founded in 1877, american humane association, dba american humane society (american humane) is committed to ensuring the safety, welfare and well-being of animals. our leadership programs are first to serve in promoting and nurturing the…
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
To pass animal protection laws, educate the public, and support humane candidates for office.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Evidence Action and the most unlike its peers is G Fredrick Charitable Foundation. 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 24 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% 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.
99 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. 99 of the 121 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 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds Wildlife Conservation Society ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds ORANGUTAN FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds WORLD ANIMAL PROTECTION ↗
- Who funds PANTHERA CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Humane World for Animals Inc ↗
- Who funds Defenders of Wildlife ↗
- Who funds Cheetah Conservation Fund ↗
- Who funds HARLEM EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES FUND INC ↗
- Who funds THE HUMANE LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds WILD ANIMAL INITIATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds THE INNOCENCE PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds THE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds PROSPECT PARK ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds Brooklyn Animal Action Inc ↗
- Who funds STRONGMINDS INC ↗
- Who funds SAVE THE CHIMPS INC ↗
- Who funds FAUNALYTICS ↗
- Who funds NETWORK FOR GOOD ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds MERCY FOR ANIMALS INC ↗
- Who funds THE CLEAR FUND ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ↗
- Who funds JANE GOODALL INSTITUTE FOR WILDLIFE RESEARCH EDUCATION AND CONSERVATION ↗
- Who funds GOTHAM FOOD PANTRY INC ↗
- Who funds BARD COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds GIVEDIRECTLY INC ↗
- Who funds BRIDGE2RWANDA 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: Effective Ventures Foundation USA Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Give Lively Foundation Inc · LBRB Fund Inc · ISRB Fund Inc · The Quinn Foundation · PC Fund for Animals Charitable Tr · The Ford Foundation · Animal Charity Evaluators · Good Ventures Foundation · The New York Community Trust · American Express 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 Seb Charitable Fund 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.
- Brandeis University — 9% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% 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 Seb Charitable Fund?
Find your warmest path to Seb Charitable Fund 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.