Skip to content
The Biophilia Foundation Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

The Biophilia Foundation Inc

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.

$670k
Granted FY2025still arriving
18
Grants FY2025still arriving
8
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$6.2MAnimals$271kEducation$174kPublic Safety & Disaster$60kPhilanthropy$30kYouth Development$30kArts & Culture$26kHuman Services$25k
02FY2025 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $7k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $198k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $465k
$30,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$4.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WILDLANDS NETWORK$100,000
SAGELAND COLLABORATIVE$80,000
CHESAPEAKE WILDLIFE HERITAGE INC$75,000
RIO BRAVO RESTORATION$60,000
TREES WATER & PEOPLE$50,000
E3KFM KUNDALINI FIRE MANAGEMENT$50,000
BORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORK$50,000
LA TIERRA DEL JAGUAR$40,500
BOULDER WATERSHED COLLECTIVE$30,000
LOCALOGY$30,000
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY$25,000
BEAVER INSTITUTE INC$20,000
YELLOWSTONE TO UINTAS CONNECTION$15,000
FRIENDS OF THE YAMPA$15,000
THE WILD FOUNDATION$12,000
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 (FY19–25, $65k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%BEAVER INSTITUTE INC: $20k → 12%TIDES CENTER: $30k → 10%BEAVER INSTITUTE INC: $5k → 12%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $10k → 14%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

VT
WA
MA
PA
CA
UT
CO
VA
MD
AZ
NM
DC
TX
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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$6.0M · 25 repeat orgs$764k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +31% since the first grant, against +17% for those funded once.

25 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

25
22

Total granted

$6.0M
$622k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+31%
+17%

Still filing today

80%
64%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $142k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentArts & CultureEducationAnimalsHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • BR
    BORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORK
    6× · 2020–2025 · $1.0M · revenue +101%
  • CW
    CHESAPEAKE WILDLIFE HERITAGE INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $675k · revenue +12%
  • SC
    Sageland Collaborative
    7× · 2018–2025 · $428k · revenue +236%

Funded once

  • RM
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLF PROJECT
    one grant, 2021 · $120k
  • RM
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLF PROJECT
    one grant, 2024 · $100k · 77% of their budget
  • UG
    US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
    one grant, 2021 · $62k
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
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
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
Living Rivers

Living rivers promotes river restoration through mobilization by articulating conservation and alternative management strategies to the public. seeking to revive the natural habitat and spirit of rivers by undoing the extensive damage done…

Environment
4
Native Ecosystems Council

Promote wildlife habitat

Environment
5
Swan Valley Connections

Maintain the swan valley's unique natural resources and ensure that a vibrant human community can sustain itself through stewardship, education, economic viability, and conservation on public and private lands.

Environment
6
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.

—
7
Climate Conservation Dba Center for Large Landscape Conservation

We bring science, policy, and proven solutions directly to communities working to restore the integrity and natural connectivity of the landscapes in which they live. (see schedule o)

Environment
8
Wild Landscapes Inc

Wild landscapes, inc. (wli) is dedicated to conserving large and connected landscapes globally significant to wildlife and crucial to local communities. our environmental conservation strategy is to empower communities, conservationists,…

Animals
9
Southwest Environmental Center

To promote and protect Wildlife

—
10
Big Thompson Watershed Coalition

Vision: a healthy and resilient big thompson watershed benefitting fish, wildlife, and the people itserves through collaborative efforts for current and future generations. mission: working with others to take action that protects and…

Environment
11
CalWild

The California Wilderness Coalition protects the natural landscapes that make California unique, providing clean air and water, a home to wildlife, and a place for recreation and spiritual renewal.

—
12
Natura Bolivia Foundation

The Natura Bolivia Foundation is dedicated to implementing, and evaluating the impact of conservation and development programs, with a focus on watershed conservation, protected areas, and incentive based conservation in Bolivia. We work…

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildearth Guardians; the most unlike its peers is Smithsonian Institution. 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

41 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. 41 of the 56 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
41/41
Grantees still filing
24/41
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORK: $1,005,000 · EnvironmentBORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORKCHESAPEAKE WILDLIFE HERITAGE INC: $675,000 · EnvironmentCHESAPEAKE WILDLIFE HERITAGE INCSageland Collaborative: $428,000 · EnvironmentSageland CollaborativeTREES WATER AND PEOPLE: $150,000 · EnvironmentRIO GRANDE RETURN: $125,000 · EnvironmentCOLORADO NATURE LEAGUE: $120,000 · EnvironmentRIO BRAVO RESTORATION: $110,000 · Environment+13 more: $456,110 · Environment+13 moreIndividual grant recipient: $1,491,640 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $572,400 · OtherIndividual grant recipientWILDLIFE CORRIDORS LLC: $342,500 · OtherWILDLIFE CORRIDORS LLCROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLF PROJECT: $119,855 · Other+16 more: $381,185 · Other+16 moreWild Earth Society Incorporated: $400,000 · Arts & CultureSUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE INC: $25,000 · Arts & CultureSMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: $20,000 · Arts & Culture+1 more: $1,000 · Arts & CultureROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLF PROJECT: $100,248 · AnimalsTHEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP INC: $60,000 · AnimalsNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $25,000 · AnimalsLa Tierra del Jaguar: $91,000 · EducationE3KFM Kundalini Fire Management: $50,000 · EducationCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Education+1 more: $3,200 · EducationTIDES CENTER: $30,000 · Human ServicesBeaver Institute Inc: $25,000 · Human ServicesAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $10,000 · Human ServicesLOCALOGY: $30,000 · Youth DevelopmentTHE FOREST STEWARDS GUILD: $4,000 · Youth Development
Environment$3,069,110Other$2,907,580Arts & Culture$446,000Animals$185,248Education$149,200Human Services$65,000Youth Development$34,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORK: $1,005,000 over 6y, 20% of budgetCHESAPEAKE WILDLIFE HERITAGE INC: $675,000 over 9y, 10% of budgetSageland Collaborative: $428,000 over 7y, 11% of budgetWild Earth Society Incorporated: $400,000 over 4y, 3.3% of budgetTREES WATER AND PEOPLE: $150,000 over 3y, 2.2% of budgetRIO GRANDE RETURN: $125,000 over 2y, 6.2% of budgetCOLORADO NATURE LEAGUE: $120,000 over 2y, 47% of budgetRIO BRAVO RESTORATION: $110,000 over 2y, 25% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLF PROJECT: $100,248 over 1y, 77% of budgetLa Tierra del Jaguar: $91,000 over 3y, 17% of budgetYellowstone to Uintas Connection: $75,000 over 7y, 21% of budgetCOALITION FOR THE POUDRE RIVER WATERSHED: $60,110 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetTHEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP INC: $60,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetCENTRAL ARIZONA LAND TRUST: $50,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetCASCADE FOREST CONSERVANCY: $50,000 over 2y, 4.2% of budgetAMERICAN RIVERS INC: $50,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSan Juan Citizens Alliance: $45,000 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetGREEN AMENDMENTS FOR THE GENERATIONS: $35,000 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetLOCALOGY: $30,000 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $30,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSOUTHERN PLAINS LAND TRUST INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetTIDES CENTER: $30,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBAT CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL: $25,417 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE INC: $25,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetBeaver Institute Inc: $25,000 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL WILDERNESS LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION INC: $24,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetSMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION ADVOCATES: $20,000 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetWILDEARTH GUARDIANS: $15,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetPATAGONIA AREA RESOURCE ALLIANCE: $15,000 over 2y, 5.3% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSCENIC RIVERS LAND TRUST INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetHIGH COUNTRY NEWS: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNEW MEXICO HIGHLANDS UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $3,200 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNatural History Institute: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSKY ISLAND ALLIANCE: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

PatagoniaorgNational Forest Found…The Nature ConservancyNational Fish and Wil…Defenders of WildlifeThe New-Land Foundati…Maki FoundationWilburforce FoundationArizona Community Fou…Maine Community Found…S B FoundationCarroll Petrie Founda…
PatagoniaorgCA25.9× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Patagoniaorg · National Forest Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Defenders of Wildlife · The New-Land Foundation Inc · Maki Foundation · Wilburforce Foundation · Arizona Community Foundation · Maine Community Foundation Inc · S B Foundation · Carroll Petrie 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 The Biophilia Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Biophilia Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    4get no government money at all
    5report 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The Biophilia Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to The Biophilia Foundation Inc 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.

    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 56 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 Biophilia’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