How much did SKYEMAR FOUNDATION grant in FY2024?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 77% of SKYEMAR FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.

02FY2024 · 41 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k36 grants · $85k
$10k–50k4 grants · $43k
$50k–250k1 grant · $55k

$2,500

Median grant

States reached

$3.0M

Total assets

Largest grants

YALE$55,000
CAMP KABEYUN$12,500
COMMON CAUSE EDUCATION FUND$10,000
CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER$10,000
PUBLIC CITIZEN$10,000
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL$6,000
WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN$5,000
POSTCLASSICAL ENSEMBLE$5,000
ENVIROMENTAL DEFENSE FUND$5,000
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERV$5,000
NATIONAL RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL$5,000
SIERRA CLUB MEMBER SVCS$5,000
RAINBOW THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER$5,000
NATIONAL PARK CONSERVATION$5,000
ACLU$5,000

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–18, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13% — the area typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$970k · 73 repeat orgs$32k to everyone else

73 repeat relationships — 36 still active in FY2024, 37 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$970k

$12k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+57%

+112%

Still filing today

37%

33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EnvironmentAnimalsEducationHealthInternationalPublic BenefitOther

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

DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE
7× · 2017–2024 · $30k · revenue +98%
WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN
5× · 2020–2024 · $21k · revenue +1417%
WC
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY
5× · 2017–2022 · $19k · revenue +24%

Funded once

WC
WILDLIFE CENTER
one grant, 2017 · $3k
FW
FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATIONgraduated
one grant, 2023 · $3k · revenue +116%
E
EARTHWORKSgraduated
one grant, 2021 · $3k · revenue +112%

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

04Your field

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.

International Wildlife

The international wildlife refuge foundation was created in 2005 to help foster conservation, increase refuge visibility, encourage support, and enhance quality of life. it is an alliance of organizations and individuals that builds the…

Environment

Wildlife Conservation Global Inc

Wcg staff in partnership with the government of dr congo, work in a holistic manner to engage local communities in the protection of habitat and wildlife in the most biologically diverse forest in africa.

Animals

Wilderness Conservation Foundation

Environment

Women for Conservation

Protect endangered wildlife and their habitats

Environment

Wildlife Conservation Network Inc

To protect endangered species & preserve their natural habitats.

Animals

Fauna & Flora International Usa Inc

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.

Philanthropy

Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and our planet by creating protected reserves.

International

Defenders of Wildlife

Habitat and species protection.

Animals

The Water Research Foundation

Advancing the science of water to improve the quality of life.

Environment

Conservation Farms & Ranches

Preserving and enhancing the habitat of wildlife, such as sandhill cranes, waterfowl, raptors, which habitat expenses are supported by agricultural activities.

Housing & Shelter

Environment Now

—

Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International

A people-centered approach to the conservation of gorillas and their habitats in Africa

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is World Wildlife Fund Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Phillips Collection. 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.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 35 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) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/33

the rest of the field

11%

206,164/1,819,532

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.

04the grantee network

33 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

33/33

Grantees still filing

29/33

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$790,900Environment$53,000Animals$43,000Public Benefit$37,500Health$31,325International$24,500Education$21,125

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.

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.

Dun FoundationVA18.1× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Dun Foundation · Msa Family Fund · Wise Foundation · The Luminescence Foundation Inc · Northern Piedmont Community · Fauquier Health Foundation · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc

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 organisation SKYEMAR 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

4get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: CITIZENS FOR FAUQUIER COUNTY.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~8 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 4 filed years.

Track record & reputation

medium risk

4 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 8.0× since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 541399566 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on CITIZENS FOR FAUQUIER COUNTY, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 8 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2025; revenue grew over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 4% of their budget — diversified.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to Skyemar Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Skyemar Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

SKYEMAR FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

33 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Skyemar Foundation?

More from the funding graph

SKYEMAR FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

33 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Skyemar Foundation?

More from the funding graph