· Private foundation
The Dean Witter Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NATUREBRIDGE | $45,000 |
| SEALIFE RESPONSE REHABILITATION & RESEARCH | $30,000 |
| EAT HAPPY NOW | $30,000 |
| THE THACHER SCHOOL | $30,000 |
| BELLEVUE SCHOOLS FOUNDATION | $30,000 |
| ISLANDWOOD | $30,000 |
| NORTHWEST FILM FORUM | $30,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTONCOLLEGE OF THE ENVIRONMENT | $30,000 |
| PRACTICAL FARMERS OF IOWA | $25,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON CLEAN ENERGY INSTITUTE | $25,000 |
| WILDLANDS CONSERVANCY | $25,000 |
| FRED HUTCH CANCER CENTER | $25,000 |
| WILDLANDS CONSERVANCY | $15,000 |
| HIVE | $15,000 |
| INSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY | $12,500 |
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 (FY17–25, $60k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 83% 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 +77% since the first grant, against +52% for the ones you funded once.
31 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2025, 20 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $125k 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
- TPThe Peninsula College Fund4× · 2017–2022 · $203k · revenue +89%
- FOFRIENDS OF KEXP5× · 2019–2024 · $115k · revenue +77%
- TTThe Thacher School Inc3× · 2023–2025 · $110k · revenue +169%
Funded once
- CHCREDO HIGH SCHOOLgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $50k · revenue +69%
- MAMARINE APPLIED RESEARCH AND EXPLORATIONgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $50k · revenue +121%
- YEYOUTH ENRICHMENT STRATEGIES NATURE TO NEIGHBORHOODSone grant, 2018 · $50k
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.
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…
We are educators, scientists, and community members with a mission to foster curiosity through science. We engage students' natural curiosity, guiding them to design and perform experiments that answer their own questions through the…
Create and publish educational materials, conduct professional development, promote awareness, and sponsor research on the spectacular biological diversity of the State of CA.
Sierra Watershed Education Partnerships (SWEP) promotes environmental stewardship by connecting students to their community and local environment through comprehensive watershed education and service learning projects.
10,000 Years Institute evaluates the ecological effects of human activities on natural environments, and promotes the maintenance and restoration of ecological integrity through the integration of reliable scientific information, sound…
Bay Nature connects the people of the San Francisco Bay Area to our natural world and motivates people to solve problems with nature in mind. Our vision is that all people have a close relationship with theirnatural world.
The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.
Our mission is to spark wonder and intellectual curiosity in each child. We achieve this through a purposeful blend of:Engaging academics custom-tailored to each child's abilities, strengths and interests;An unparalleled social-emotional…
EarthGens mission is to guide and support youth, educators, and school communities to become leaders for a healthy environment.
Nature collective's mission is to drive a passion for nature for all. we think inclusively and diversely when serving those devoid of nature those who remember nature and want to connect back to it and those who have an affinity with…
Pei supports educators by specializing in professional learning and fieldstem implementation.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Pepperwood Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Marine Applied Research and Exploration. 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 29 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
90 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. 90 of the 123 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 The Peninsula College Fund ↗
- Who funds BELLEVUE SCHOOLS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATUREBRIDGE ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF KEXP ↗
- Who funds The Thacher School Inc ↗
- Who funds The Wildlands Conservancy ↗
- Who funds THE CERES COMMUNITY PROJECT ↗
- Who funds NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds REACH UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds THE SAN JUAN PRESERVATION TRUST ↗
- Who funds AP Giannini Middle School PTA ↗
- Who funds Northwest Association for Biomedical Research ↗
- Who funds MENTORING URBAN STUDENTS & TEENS ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY ↗
- Who funds ISLANDWOOD ↗
- Who funds Community Resources for Science ↗
- Who funds YOUNG WOMEN EMPOWERED ↗
- Who funds PIE RANCH ↗
- Who funds Eat Happy Now ↗
- Who funds RESOURCE CENTRAL ↗
- Who funds CREDO HIGH SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds MARINE APPLIED RESEARCH AND EXPLORATION ↗
- Who funds COASTAL WATERSHED COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds FoodWhat Incorporated ↗
- Who funds REDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds SANTA ROSA JUNIOR COLLEGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WATERSIDE WORKSHOPS ↗
- Who funds VENTANA WILDERNESS ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER ↗
- Who funds Life Learning Academy ↗
- Who funds MOUNTAIN PARKS FOUNDATION OF SANTA CRUZ ↗
- Who funds GAME THEORY ACADEMY ↗
- Who funds Canopy ↗
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: Clif Family Foundation · Miranda Lux Foundation · The Joseph and Vera Long Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Mary a Crocker Trust · Bothin Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · Save the Redwoods League · Patagoniaorg · The David and Lucile Packard 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 The Dean Witter 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.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% 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 The Dean Witter Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Dean Witter 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.