· Private foundation
Shasta Wildlife Conservation 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 FY2017–2023.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE ALDO LEOPOLD FOUNDATION | $7,500 |
| UNIVESITRY OF CALIFORNIA BOTANICAL GARDEN BERKELEY | $5,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY | $5,000 |
| CALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION | $2,000 |
| THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY | $2,000 |
| CALIFORNIA TROUT | $2,000 |
| WORLD WILDLIFE FUND | $2,000 |
| HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY DEPATRMENT OF WILDLIFE | $2,000 |
| NATIONAL WILDLIFE FOUNDATION | $2,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA THE JEPSON HERBARIUM | $2,000 |
| CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY | $2,000 |
| SEA OTTER SAVVY | $2,000 |
| SAN JOAQUIN RIVER PARKWAY & CONSERVATION TRUST | $2,000 |
| WELDER WILDLIFE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION | $2,000 |
| THE TUOLUMNE RIVER TRUST | $2,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 84% 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 +157% since the first grant, against +61% for the ones you funded once.
18 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2023, 10 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (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 FY2023, 47% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $24k 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
- ALALDO LEOPOLD FOUNDATION INC6× · 2017–2023 · $18k · revenue +29%
- SJSAN JOAQUIN RIVER PARKWAY & CONSERVATION TRUST6× · 2017–2023 · $12k · revenue +41%
- NWNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION6× · 2017–2023 · $12k · revenue +72%
Funded once
- UOUNIVESITRY OF CALIFORNIA BOTANICAL GARDEN BERKELEYone grant, 2023 · $5k
- UOUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGYone grant, 2023 · $5k
- WWWELDER WILDLIFE CONSERVATION FOUNDATIONone grant, 2023 · $2k
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 resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.
The Elkhorn Slough Foundation's mission is to conserve and restore Elkhorn Slough and its watershed, California's largest tidal salt marsh south of San Francisco Bay. Renowned for its extraordinary biodiversity, Elkhorn Slough features a…
Nature collective's mission is to drive a passion for nature for all. we think inclusively and diversely when serving those devoid of nature those who remember nature and want to connect back to it and those who have an affinity with…
To conserve, protect, and restore north america's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.
The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species
To conserve functioning salmon/steelhead eco-system at watershed levels, integrate angling activities with basic scientific research, collect raw data, monitor environmental functions, salmon/steelhead population dynamics, public…
To ensure coast redwood forests in the santa cruz mountains thrive for generations to come. since 1900, sempervirens has protected more than 36,000 acres. learn more about our mission, vision, and strategic plan through 2030 at:…
Maintain the swan valley's unique natural resources and ensure that a vibrant human community can sustain itself through stewardship, education, economic viability, and conservation on public and private lands.
To improve fisheries resources in the state of california.
The organization protects and enhances the local environment through education, advocacy and legal action.
Council for watershed health advances the health and sustainability of the region's watersheds, rivers, streams, and habitats - in both natural areas and urban neighborhoods - through science-based research, education, and inclusive…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is California Trout Inc and the most unlike its peers is California Waterfowl Association. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 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. 10 of the 27 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 ALDO LEOPOLD FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SAN JOAQUIN RIVER PARKWAY & CONSERVATION TRUST ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds Tuolumne River Preservation Trust dba Yosemite Rivers Alliance ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA TROUT INC ↗
- Who funds POINT REYES BIRD OBSERVATORY ↗
- Who funds California Native Plant Society ↗
- Who funds SEA OTTER SAVVY ↗
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: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Shasta Wildlife Conservation 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.