Skip to content
Soka 'Piiwa Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Soka 'Piiwa Foundation

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.

$83k
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$20k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Environment$318kAnimals$36kArts & Culture$32kHuman Services$20kRecreation & Sports$10kHealth$7kReligion$5kPublic Safety & Disaster$5k
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k7 grants · $43k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $40k
$7,500
Median grant
3
States reached
$2.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATIVE FISH SOCIETY$20,000
WILD SALMON CENTER$10,000
MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER$10,000
WILD MONTANA$7,500
ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT WEED ROUNDTABLE$7,500
MONTANA TROUT UNLIMITED$7,500
Individual grant recipient$5,000
FAST BLACKFEET$5,000
GRACEFUL DAYS END OF LIFE HOME$5,000
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL$5,000
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%BRIGHT EYES CARE & REHAB CENTER INC: $3k → 13%BRIGHT EYES CARE & REHAB CENTER INC: $3k → 13%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

MT
IL
MI
NY
OR
NJ
CO
VA
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 6% of Soka 'Piiwa Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Soka 'Piiwa Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$426k · 17 repeat orgs$69k to everyone else

17 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
10

Total granted

$426k
$54k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+29%
+52%

Still filing today

65%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsEnvironmentHealthRecreation & SportsCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesOther
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

  • NF
    Native Fish Society Inc
    6× · 2020–2025 · $80k · revenue +89%
  • WR
    WESTERN RIVERS CONSERVANCY
    4× · 2020–2023 · $50k · revenue +27%
  • WILD SALMON CENTER
    4× · 2020–2025 · $43k · revenue +166%

Funded once

  • MT
    MONTANA TROUT UNLIMITED
    one grant, 2022 · $10k
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF THE TETON - CHOTEAU
    one grant, 2022 · $10k
  • FC
    FLATHEAD CHAPTER TROUT UNLIMITED
    one grant, 2023 · $5k
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
Native Ecosystems Council

Promote wildlife habitat

Environment
2
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
3
Blackfoot Challenge Inc

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.

Environment
4
Resource Renewal Institute

The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.

Environment
5
Western Environmental Law Center

Public interest law firm - the western environmental law center uses the power of the law to foster thriving, resilient western u.s. lands, waters, wildlife, and communities in the face of a changing climate. we envision a thriving west,…

—
6
Upper Missouri Waterkeeper Inc

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…

Education
7
Cascadia Wildlands

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…

Environment
8
Predator Defense

Protecting vital native predators & ending war on wildlife.

Animals
9
Idaho Conservation League Inc

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.

—
10
Wyoming Wildlife Advocates

To promote science-based wildlife management that fosters ecosystem health and dynamic equilibrium between species throughout the state of wyoming.

Animals
11
Wild Salmon Rivers

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…

Environment
12
Jackson Hole Wildlife Foundation

Jackson hole wildlife foundation advances wildlife conservation driven by science, collaboration, and a community of volunteers.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Montana Wildlife Federation; 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.
05the grantee network

18 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. 18 of the 31 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
12/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $45,000 · OtherNATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCILWILD MONTANA: $27,500 · OtherWILD MONTANARONALD MCDONALD HOUSE: $20,000 · OtherRONALD MCDONALD HOUSETHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $20,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYIndividual grant recipient: $16,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientMONTANA TROUT UNLIMITED: $10,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF THE TETON - CHOTEAU: $10,000 · Other+10 more: $49,500 · Other+10 moreNative Fish Society Inc: $80,000 · AnimalsNative Fish Society IncWILD SALMON CENTER: $43,000 · AnimalsWILD SALMON CENTERMONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $13,500 · AnimalsMONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATIONBONEFISH & TARPON TRUST INC: $5,000 · Animals+1 more: $1,000 · AnimalsWESTERN RIVERS CONSERVANCY: $50,000 · EnvironmentWESTERN RIVERS CONSER…Montana Environmental Information Center: $32,500 · EnvironmentMontana Environmental…ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT WEED ROUNDTABLE INC: $12,000 · EnvironmentROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT …NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $5,000 · EnvironmentMONTANA TROUT UNLIMITED: $42,500 · Recreation & SportsMONTANA T…OLD TRAIL MUSEUM: $15,000 · Arts & CultureNORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL: $10,000 · Community ImprovementRanch Hope Inc: $5,000 · HealthBENEFIS TETON MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $2,000 · Health
Other$198,500Animals$142,500Environment$99,500Recreation & Sports$42,500Arts & Culture$15,000Community Improvement$10,000Health$7,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNative Fish Society Inc: $80,000 over 6y, 2.7% of budgetWESTERN RIVERS CONSERVANCY: $50,000 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetWILD SALMON CENTER: $43,000 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetMONTANA TROUT UNLIMITED: $42,500 over 3y, 3.3% of budgetMontana Environmental Information Center: $32,500 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetOLD TRAIL MUSEUM: $15,000 over 2y, 22% of budgetMONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $13,500 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT WEED ROUNDTABLE INC: $12,000 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetNORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL: $10,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRanch Hope Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFAST BLACKFEET: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPIEGAN INSTITUTE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetBONEFISH & TARPON TRUST INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBRIGHT EYES ANIMAL SHELTER INC: $5,000 over 2y, 3.7% of budgetBENEFIS TETON MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $2,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetDENVER DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUE: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds Native Fish Society Inc ↗
  • Who funds WESTERN RIVERS CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds WILD SALMON CENTER ↗
  • Who funds MONTANA TROUT UNLIMITED ↗
  • Who funds Montana Environmental Information Center ↗
  • Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds OLD TRAIL MUSEUM ↗
  • Who funds MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
  • Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT WEED ROUNDTABLE INC ↗
  • Who funds NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds Ranch Hope Inc ↗
  • Who funds FAST BLACKFEET ↗
  • Who funds PIEGAN INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds BONEFISH & TARPON TRUST INC ↗
  • Who funds BRIGHT EYES ANIMAL SHELTER INC ↗
  • Who funds BENEFIS TETON MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds DENVER DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUE ↗

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.

PatagoniaorgBoe Brothers Foundati…The Fanwood FoundationThe Kendeda FundNetwork for GoodFidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
PatagoniaorgCA15.1× affinity5 shared granteesties to 6 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Soka 'Piiwa Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Soka 'Piiwa Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 27%
  • 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
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
1report 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.

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 31 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Soka 'Piiwa’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