Skip to content
Shugar Magic Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Shugar Magic 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.

$305k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$200k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Public Benefit$580kEnvironment$558kCivil Rights$125kHuman Services$71kHealth$43kPublic Safety & Disaster$40kReligion$20kSocial Science$15kOther$0
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $45k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $250k
$12,500
Median grant
5
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER$200,000
AMERICAN SOLAR ENERGY SOCIETY$50,000
NATIONAL CAUCUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATORS$12,500
VOTE SOLAR$12,500
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW POLICY CENTER$10,000
EARTH JUSTICE$10,000
BEND THE ARC$7,500
UNITE TO LIGHT$2,500
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY18–22, $21k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 47% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%SHELTER TECH: $10k → 10%PACIFICA RESOURCE CENTER PROJECT OF THE TIDES CENTER: $11k → 7%PACIFICA RESOURCE CENTER PROJECT OF THE TIDES CENTER: $350 → 7%PACIFICA RESOURCE CENTER PROJECT OF THE TIDES CENTER: $250 → 7%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

NH
MT
IL
NY
MA
OR
NV
CA
UT
CO
DC
GA
FL
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 22 repeat orgs$530k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +44% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.

22 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

22
38

Total granted

$1.1M
$530k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+44%
+26%

Still filing today

82%
55%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentCivil RightsInternationalEducationHuman ServicesHealthOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • VS
    Vote Solar
    4× · 2019–2024 · $65k · revenue +41%
  • AC
    Atma Connect
    3× · 2019–2022 · $40k · revenue +50%
  • Rocky Mountain Institute
    2× · 2021–2023 · $33k · revenue +52%

Funded once

  • BV
    BLACK VOTERS MATTER FUND INC DBA BVM CAPACITY BUILDING INSTITUTE
    one grant, 2020 · $60k
  • NV
    NEW VENTURE FUND DBA VOTER ENGAGEMENT FUND
    one grant, 2020 · $60k
  • AC
    ACCELERATE CHANGE INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $50k · revenue +495%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
2
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
3
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
4
Fresh Energy

Shape and drive bold policy solutions to achieve equitable carbon-neutral economies.

Environment
5
The Climate Group Inc

Climate group advances climate action by mobilizing business and government leadership to drive systemic decarbonization across energy, transport, and industry, while engaging the public through large-scale convenings and global platforms.…

Environment
6
Breakthrough Energy Foundation

Working with our world-class network of innovators, business and industry leaders, and policy experts, we accelerate the innovation of climate technologies at every stage - from discovery to development to deployment.

Public Benefit
7
Climate Catalyst Inc

Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.

Environment
8
Nw Energy Coalition

The NW Energy Coalition is an alliance of over 100 environmental, civic, and human service organizations, utilities, and businesses in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia, plus many individual members. The NW Energy…

—
9
Third Way

To research and develop centrist policy ideas.

Civil Rights
10
Solar Energy Industries Association

Seia is the driving force behind solar energy and storage, building a stronger solar industry to power america through advocacy and education. representing organizations that promote, manufacture, install and support the development of…

—
11
The Alliance for Just Deliberation On Solar Geoengineering Inc

The alliance for just deliberation on solar geoengineering (dsg) is a charitable, scientific and educational organization dedicated to building just and inclusive deliberation about research and potential use of solar geoengineering. solar…

Environment
12
Watttime Corporation

To raise awareness about the potential to reduce environmental harm by shifting electricity use to particular times; to encourage the development and spread of common protocols for this practice.

Science & Tech
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is As You Sow; the most unlike its peers is Epic Institute. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

41 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 41 of the 60 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
11
Early backer (in before they grew)
39/41
Grantees still filing
27/41
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SIERRA CLUB: $67,000 · OtherSIERRA CLUBBLACK VOTERS MATTER FUND INC DBA BVM CAPACITY BUILDING INSTITUTE: $60,000 · OtherBLACK VOTERS MATTER FUND INC DBA BVM CAPAC…NEW VENTURE FUND DBA VOTER ENGAGEMENT FUND: $60,000 · OtherNEW VENTURE FUND DBA VOTER ENGAGEMENT FUNDBEND THE ARC: $59,500 · OtherBEND THE ARCWIND SOLAR ALLIANCE: $50,000 · OtherWIND SOLAR ALLIANCERocky Mountain Institute: $33,000 · OtherRocky Mountain InstituteIndividual grant recipient: $30,000 · OtherENVIRONMENTAL LAW POLICY CENTER: $30,000 · OtherAS YOU SOW: $25,000 · Other+25 more: $186,372 · Other+25 moreTHE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER: $450,000 · Civil RightsTHE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTERNATIONAL REDISTRICTING FOUNDATION: $75,000 · Civil RightsNATIONAL REDISTRICTING FOUNDATIONACCELERATE CHANGE INC: $50,000 · Civil RightsACCELERATE CHANGE INCVote Solar: $65,000 · EnvironmentVote SolarAMERICAN SOLAR ENERGY SOCIETY INC: $60,200 · EnvironmentAMERICAN SOLAR ENER…EARTHJUSTICE: $30,000 · EnvironmentEARTHJUSTICEENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST: $25,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL LAW A…YELLOWSTONE TO YUKON: $18,500 · EnvironmentYELLOWSTONE TO YUKO…BETTER FUTURE PROJECT INC: $18,500 · EnvironmentBETTER FUTURE PROJE…Epic Institute: $10,000 · EnvironmentGridLab Inc: $10,000 · EnvironmentHonnold Foundation: $10,000 · EnvironmentCalifornia Clean Energy Fund: $9,250 · Environment+3 more: $17,500 · Environment+3 moreAtma Connect: $40,000 · InternationalCYCLE CONNECT INC: $12,500 · InternationalUNITE TO LIGHT INC: $7,500 · InternationalCENTER FOR DISABILITY SERVICESINC: $25,000 · HealthSTANFORD HEALTH CARE: $10,500 · HealthNATIONAL CAUCUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATORS: $17,900 · EducationUC SANTA CRUZ FOUNDATION: $4,000 · EducationFOUNDATION FOR HEARING RESEARCH INC WEINGARTEN CHILDRENS CENTER: $1,000 · EducationPacifica Resource Center: $11,100 · Human ServicesShelter Tech: $10,000 · Human Services
Other$600,872Civil Rights$575,000Environment$273,950International$60,000Health$35,500Education$22,900Human Services$21,100

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER: $450,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetNATIONAL REDISTRICTING FOUNDATION: $75,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetSIERRA CLUB: $67,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetVote Solar: $65,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetAMERICAN SOLAR ENERGY SOCIETY INC: $60,200 over 3y, 7.1% of budgetWIND SOLAR ALLIANCE: $50,000 over 1y, 6.8% of budgetAtma Connect: $40,000 over 3y, 5.7% of budgetRocky Mountain Institute: $33,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE: $30,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCENTER FOR DISABILITY SERVICESINC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST: $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetAS YOU SOW: $25,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetPOWER SHIFT NETWORK: $20,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetYELLOWSTONE TO YUKON: $18,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetBETTER FUTURE PROJECT INC: $18,500 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetNATIONAL CAUCUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATORS: $17,900 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetCYCLE CONNECT INC: $12,500 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetHEART OF AMERICA FOUNDATION: $12,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPacifica Resource Center: $11,100 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetSTANFORD HEALTH CARE: $10,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetEpic Institute: $10,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetShelter Tech: $10,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetTHE SOLAR FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetGridLab Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetHonnold Foundation: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetFREE AND FAIR LITIGATION GROUP INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetCalifornia Clean Energy Fund: $9,250 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetCONFLUENCE PHILANTHROPY INC: $9,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetTHE WHITE MOUNTAIN SCHOOL ST MARY'S IN THE MOUNTAINS: $8,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetRENEWABLES 100 POLICY INSTITUTE: $7,500 over 1y, 7.7% of budgetUNITE TO LIGHT INC: $7,500 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetARCTIC ICE PROJECT: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetMAMONI VALLEY PRESERVE: $5,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetINTERSTATE RENEWABLE ENERGY COUNCIL: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetUC SANTA CRUZ FOUNDATION: $4,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNational Equal Justice Association Inc: $3,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetSHANE MCCONKEY FOUNDATION: $2,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR HEARING RESEARCH INC WEINGARTEN CHILDRENS CENTER: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPACIFICANS CARE: $250 over 1y, 0.3% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Energy FoundationThe McKnight Foundati…United States Energy …Wallace Global Fund IISilicon Valley Commun…ImpactassetsincGordon E and Betty I …PatagoniaorgThe William & Flora H…Jewish Community Fede…The Overbrook Foundat…The Goldman Sachs Cha…
The Energy FoundationCA17.4× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Energy Foundation · The McKnight Foundation · United States Energy Foundation · Wallace Global Fund II · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · Patagoniaorg · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · The Overbrook Foundation · The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Shugar Magic Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Shugar Magic Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Shugar Magic Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Shugar Magic 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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 60 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Shugar Magic’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home