· Private foundation
Taylor Unity 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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL | $6,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN | $5,000 |
| LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE | $4,500 |
| CEDAR CREEK RIDING SCHOOL | $4,000 |
| BIG BROTHERSBIG SISTERS | $3,000 |
| EARTH JUSTICE | $2,000 |
| HILLSDALE COLLEGE | $2,000 |
| SALVATION ARMY | $2,000 |
| CREATING REFUGE | $1,500 |
| ENVIRONMENT FOR THE AMERICAS | $1,500 |
| MO HUMANE SOCIETY | $1,000 |
| TRUE NORTH | $1,000 |
| OCEAN CONSERVANCY | $650 |
| VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS | $500 |
| UNITED WAY | $500 |
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 (FY23–23, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 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 +66% since the first grant, against +23% for the ones you funded once.
17 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 8 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, 83% 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
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC7× · 2018–2024 · $35k · revenue +37%- UOUniversity of Michigan5× · 2020–2024 · $23k · revenue +139%
- TNTRUE NORTH OF COLUMBIA INC6× · 2019–2024 · $15k · revenue +66%
Funded once
- PTPRESIDIO TRone grant, 2017 · $40k
- SCSMITH COLLEGE FUNDone grant, 2018 · $2k
- CRCAPITAL REGION MEDICAL FDone grant, 2018 · $2k
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.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…
Climate central, inc. (the organization") is an independent not-for-profit organization of leading scientists, technology experts and communication professionals that are dedicated to researching and reporting on climate change and its…
The organization pursues higher standards of news coverage of natural resources and the environment -- standards of accuracy, fairness, balance, depth and context.
The Chile-California Council is a San Francisco-based nonprofit dedicated to developing and promoting joint endeavors and cooperative relations between Chile and California, as well as individuals, legal entities and other institutions in…
The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.
Perc is dedicated to advancing conservation through markets, incentives, property rights, and partnerships.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Trust for Public Land and the most unlike its peers is Blue Earth Alliance. 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 48 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.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
27 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. 27 of the 50 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 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds University of Michigan ↗
- Who funds TRUE NORTH OF COLUMBIA INC ↗
- Who funds Leadership Institute ↗
- Who funds HILLSDALE COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds CEDAR CREEK THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENT FOR THE AMERICAS INC ↗
- Who funds GREAT CIRCLE ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds VOLUNTARY ACTION CENTER ↗
- Who funds Woodwell Climate Research Center Inc ↗
- Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
- Who funds Coyote Hill Foster Care Ministries ↗
- Who funds Trustees of Dartmouth College ↗
- Who funds THE BARACK OBAMA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Golden Gate Bird Alliance Prev Golden Gate Audubon Society Inc ↗
- Who funds OCEAN CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds Francisco Park Conservancy ↗
- Who funds Great Rivers Council - Boy Scouts of America ↗
- Who funds CHRONICLE SEASON OF SHARING FUND ↗
- Who funds CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY ↗
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: Veterans United Foundation · Fred V & Dorothy H Heinkel Charitable Foundation · Stafford Family Charitable Trust · Boone Electric Community Trust · Orscheln Industries Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Taylor Unity 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.
- Woodwell Climate Research Center Inc — 11% of income from government
- Chesapeake Bay Foundation Inc — 2% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Taylor Unity Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Taylor Unity Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.