· Private foundation
Soka 'Piiwa 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 FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k5 grants · $25k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $40k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NATIVE FISH SOCIETY | $15,000 |
| MONTANA TROUT UNLIMITED | $15,000 |
| RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE | $10,000 |
| WILD MONTANA | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER | $5,000 |
| BADROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT | $5,000 |
| WILD SALMON CENTER | $5,000 |
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 (FY20–21, $5k) 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 6% of Soka 'Piiwa Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
17 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 1 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, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
- NFNative Fish Society Inc5× · 2020–2024 · $60k · revenue +89%
- WRWESTERN RIVERS CONSERVANCY4× · 2020–2023 · $50k · revenue +27%
- MTMONTANA TROUT UNLIMITED2× · 2020–2024 · $35k · revenue +196%
Funded once
- MTMONTANA TROUT UNLIMITEDone grant, 2022 · $10k
- FOFRIENDS OF THE TETON - CHOTEAUone grant, 2022 · $10k
BONEFISH & TARPON TRUST INCone grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue -35%
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.
Promote wildlife habitat
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…
The mission of The Blackfoot Challenge is to coordinate efforts that will conserve and enhance the natural resources and rural way of life in the Blackfoot Watershed for present and future generations.
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…
To promote science-based wildlife management that fosters ecosystem health and dynamic equilibrium between species throughout the state of wyoming.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
Icl's mission is to create a conservation community and pragmatic, enduring solutions that protect and restore the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land and wildlife you love.
Upper missouri waterkeeper protects fishable, swimmable, drinkable water throughout the 25,000 square miles of montana's upper missouri river basin of montana. to accomplish this mission we actively engage with citizens, stakeholders and…
Promote research and actions to save wildlife.
In 2025, the salmonfly project advanced its mission to conserve aquatic insects and the ecosystems they support through expanded monitoring, research, and public engagement across the western unted states. we completed annual aquatic…
Uniting and mobilizing communities to keep montana wild.
Wyoming wildlife federation delivers leadership in conservation for the state's wildlife, hunters, anglers, and conservationists through policy, education, advocacy, and habitat.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Montana Wildlife Federation and the most unlike its peers is Bright Eyes Animal Shelter Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
16 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. 16 of the 28 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 Native Fish Society Inc ↗
- Who funds WESTERN RIVERS CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds MONTANA TROUT UNLIMITED ↗
- Who funds WILD SALMON CENTER ↗
- Who funds Montana Environmental Information Center ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds OLD TRAIL MUSEUM ↗
- Who funds MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds BRIGHT EYES ANIMAL SHELTER INC ↗
- Who funds BONEFISH & TARPON TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds Ranch Hope Inc ↗
- Who funds PIEGAN INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT WEED ROUNDTABLE INC ↗
- Who funds BENEFIS TETON MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds DENVER DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUE ↗
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: Patagoniaorg · Boe Brothers Foundation D a Davidson Trust Co · The Fanwood Foundation · The Kendeda Fund · Network for Good · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Soka 'Piiwa 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Wild Salmon Center — 49% of income from government
- Native Fish Society Inc — 27% of income from government
- Western Rivers Conservancy — 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.