Skip to content
Sound Rivers Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Sound Rivers Inc

To protect and enhance the tar-pamlico and neuse river watersheds.

$86k
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
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, FY2023 to 2024.

Environment$145k
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k6 grants · $30k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $55k
$5,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MOUNTAIN TRUE$20,000
WINYAH RIVERS ALLIANCE$15,000
CAPE FEAR RIVERWATCH$10,000
SOUND RIVERS (PD BY WKC)$10,000
COASTAL CAROLINA RIVERWATCH$5,000
SOUND RIVERS (PD BY WKC)$5,000
HAW RIVER ASSEMBLY$5,000
GOOD STEWARDS OF ROCKINGHAM$5,000
YADKIN RIVERKEEPER$5,000
CATAWBA RIVERKEEPER FOUNDATION$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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY23–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 86% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%NC CONSERVATION NETWORK: $15k → 8%CAPE FEAR RIVERWATCH: $10k → 12%CATAWBA RIVERKEEPER FOUNDATION: $5k → 12%COASTAL CAROLINA RIVERWATCH: $5k → 12%MOUNTAIN TRUE: $20k → 12%YADKIN RIVERKEEPER: $5k → 15%GOOD STEWARDS OF ROCKINGHAM: $5k → 17%SOUND RIVERS (PD BY WKC): $10k → 18%MOUNTAIN TRUE: $20k → 12%SOUND RIVERS (PD BY WKC): $10k → 18%SOUND RIVERS (PD BY WKC): $5k → 18%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.
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.

66%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$95k · 3 repeat orgs$50k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
1

Total granted

$95k
$15k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+1%
+34%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 59% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24
EnvironmentAnimalsEducationOther
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

  • M
    MountainTrue
    2× · 2023–2024 · $40k · revenue +108%
  • WR
    Winyah Rivers Foundation Inc
    2× · 2023–2024 · $30k · revenue +1%
  • SOUND RIVERS INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $25k · revenue -18%

Funded once

  • NORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION NETWORKgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $15k · revenue +34%
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
Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council

The Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council is a local nonprofit organization that strives to enhance and restore habitat for fish and wildlife our community and for future generations. Our Board of Directors consists of seven members with…

Environment
2
Tennessee Riverkeeper

The mission of tennessee riverkeeper is to protect and restore clean water, biological life, recreational opportunities and aesthetic values of and to the tennessee and cumberland rivers and their tributaries.

Environment
3
West Virginia Rivers Coalition Inc

To promote safe and healthy waters for all in west virginia, primarily through water policy advocacy. the organization provides public education and informational resources.

Environment
4
Partners for Environmental Justice

The mission of pej is to promote understanding and protection of urban wetlands, enhance community pride, and encourage economic development.

Environment
5
Blue Ridge Resource Conserv and Devel

Blue ridge rc&d works with partners to conserve natural resources, foster environmental stewardship, and support sustainable community development in northwest north carolina.

Environment
6
Wentworth Watershed Association

To protect and preserve the Wentworth-Crescent Watershed through initiatives that enhance water quality, land conservation and community education.

Environment
7
James River Association

The mission of the james river association is to be guardian of the james river. we provide a voice for the river and take action to promote conservation and responsible stewardship of its natural resources.

Environment
8
Hackensack Riverkeeper Inc

The mission of hackensack riverkeeper is to protect, preserve, and restore the hackensack river watershed and its living resources. hackensack riverkeeper fights for clean water, open space preservation, and public access to the river for…

Environment
9
North Coast Watershed Association

The North Coast Watershed Association (NCWA) is a non-profit organization made up of diverse stakeholders from the community who coordinate, fund, and link watershed councils to community-based efforts to improve watershed health on the…

Environment
10
Broad River Watershed Association

To preserve the Broad River as a free-flowing river system and to support land use compatible with the maintenance of water quality, scenic rural character, and the preservation of sensitive natural and historic areas and wildlife habitat.

Environment
11
Uviation World Water

To leverage education, technology, and innovative solutions to improve river health.

Environment
12
Cahaba River Society Inc

Our mission to restore and protect the Cahaba River watershed and its rich diversity of life. The diverse lives depending on the river include the Cahaba's exceptional freshwater biodiversity and also the diverse residents of Birmingham,…

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cape Fear River Watch; the most unlike its peers is Good Stewards of Rockingham. 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

10 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.

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

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
4/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MountainTrue: $40,000 · EnvironmentMountainTrueWinyah Rivers Foundation Inc: $30,000 · EnvironmentWinyah Rivers Foundation IncSOUND RIVERS INC: $25,000 · EnvironmentSOUND RIVERS INCNORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION NETWORK: $15,000 · EnvironmentNORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION NETWORKCape Fear River Watch: $10,000 · EnvironmentCape Fear River WatchCATAWBA RIVERKEEPER FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · EnvironmentGOOD STEWARDS OF ROCKINGHAM: $5,000 · EnvironmentHAW RIVER ASSEMBLY INC: $5,000 · EnvironmentCoastal Carolina Riverwatch Inc: $5,000 · AnimalsYADKIN RIVERKEEPER INC: $5,000 · Education
Environment$135,000Animals$5,000Education$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMountainTrue: $40,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetWinyah Rivers Foundation Inc: $30,000 over 2y, 4.8% of budgetSOUND RIVERS INC: $25,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION NETWORK: $15,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCape Fear River Watch: $10,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetCoastal Carolina Riverwatch Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetCATAWBA RIVERKEEPER FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetYADKIN RIVERKEEPER INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetHAW RIVER ASSEMBLY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.3% 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.

Z Smith Reynolds Foun…Waterkeeper Alliance …PatagoniaorgFoundation for the Ca…Network for GoodThe Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Z Smith Reynolds Foundation IncNC24.1× affinity9 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Z Smith Reynolds Foundation Inc · Waterkeeper Alliance Inc · Patagoniaorg · Foundation for the Carolinas · Network for Good · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Sound Rivers Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Sound Rivers Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 10 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 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 Sound Rivers’ 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