· Private foundation
Steiner King 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 FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k34 grants · $71k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $102k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MEDIATORS FOUNDATION | $46,500 |
| DRYLANDS AGROECOLOGY RESEARCH | $17,950 |
| ALLIANCE FOR COLLECTIVE ACTION | $15,000 |
| WILDCARE | $11,900 |
| ALL SEASONS CHALICE | $10,770 |
| EVANGELICALS FOR DEMOCRACY | $8,000 |
| COMMUNITIES UNITED FOR JUSTICE | $5,000 |
| TIDES FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| CALIFORNIA FILM INSTITUTE | $5,000 |
| SUNDANCE INSTITUTE | $5,000 |
| WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC | $3,000 |
| CENTER FOR COMMON GROUND | $3,000 |
| CHICKEN & EGG PICTURES | $2,500 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND | $2,000 |
| NATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS | $2,000 |
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 (FY17–24, $37k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +21% since the first grant, against +12% for the ones you funded once.
53 repeat relationships — 21 still active in FY2024, 32 since wound down; 17 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, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $31k 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
- UFUTAH FILM CENTER6× · 2017–2023 · $115k · revenue +167%
MEDIATORS FOUNDATION INC8× · 2017–2024 · $103k · revenue +326%
Sundance Institute8× · 2017–2024 · $92k · revenue +1%
Funded once
- HBHORSE BOY FOUNDATIONone grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue -92%
- CMCHICAGO MEDIA PROJECTone grant, 2018 · $11k · revenue -16%
- RSRupert Spira Foundationgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue ×22 · 94% of their budget
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.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
Cdp north america, inc. 's ("cdp-na") vision for the future is a thriving economy that works for people and planet in the long term. we focus investors and companies on taking urgent action to build a truly sustainable economy by measuring…
Common future is a network of pioneering leaders across the u.s. and canada who work deeply within their communities to create alternative approaches to business, philanthropy, and investing. we envision an economy that has transitioned…
The Breakthrough Institute is a research center that identifies and promotes technological solutions to environmental and human development challenges.
Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
Free press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. we believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mediators Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Mighty Companions Inc. 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.
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 27 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) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
152 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 152 of the 200 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 UTAH FILM CENTER ↗
- Who funds MEDIATORS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Sundance Institute ↗
- Who funds THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY INC ↗
- Who funds SKINNER LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds INTERFAZE EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTIONS INC ↗
- Who funds HORSE BOY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CHICKEN & EGG FILMS INC ↗
- Who funds WILDCARE ↗
- Who funds The Alliance For Collective Action ↗
- Who funds SOURCE OF SYNERGY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Slow Money Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO MEDIA PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Rupert Spira Foundation ↗
- Who funds DENVER FILM SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds Natural Capitalism Solutions Inc ↗
- Who funds SALT LAKE CIVIL NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds Evangelicals for Democracy ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA FILM INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds TAKE BACK OUR REPUBLIC INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS INC ↗
- Who funds THERE WITH CARE ↗
- Who funds MISSION FILMS ↗
- Who funds ONE HUMANITY INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR WHOLE COMMUNITIES INC ↗
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: Impactassetsinc · Community Foundation Boulder County · Rsf Social Finance Inc · The Denver Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Rose Community Foundation · Patagoniaorg · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · The Colorado Health Foundation · The Ford Foundation · Innovo 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 Steiner King 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.
- Mercy Corps — 47% of income from government
- National Council for the Social Studies — 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.