· Private foundation
The Fonda Family 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.
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.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k19 grants · $47k
- $10k–50k10 grants · $180k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $200k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| EMORY UNIVERSITY | $200,000 |
| HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES | $29,750 |
| UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION | $28,000 |
| HOMIES UNIDOS | $28,000 |
| GCAPP | $20,000 |
| THOMASVILLE COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER | $20,000 |
| GIRLS INC OF SANTA FE | $12,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $12,000 |
| VERMONT INDEPENDENT MEDIAINC | $10,000 |
| AMAZON FRONTLINES | $10,000 |
| CURIOUS COMMUNICATIONS | $10,000 |
| UPAYA ZEN CENTER | $5,000 |
| GREENPEACE FUND | $5,000 |
| INDIGENOUS WOMEN RISING | $4,000 |
| WOMEN'S COMMUNITY CENTER | $4,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $171k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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 +27% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
48 repeat relationships — 21 still active in FY2025, 27 since wound down; 9 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, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $32k 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
- EUEmory University9× · 2017–2025 · $1.8M · revenue +80%
- GCGeorgia Campaign for Adolescent Power and Potential Inc6× · 2017–2025 · $165k · revenue +29%
HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES6× · 2018–2025 · $135k · revenue +157%
Funded once
- THTHE HAWKINS PROJECTone grant, 2021 · $46k · revenue -3%
- WAWORKING AMERICA EDUCATION FUNDgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $30k · revenue +183%
- YAYOUNG AUTHORS GREENHOUSE INCone grant, 2022 · $24k · revenue -5%
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 union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
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…
To drive transformational adaptation to protect communities across the country from higher seas, stronger storms, and more frequent flooding.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
To lead and coordinate the global initiative to address and prevent criminalization, violence, and impunity against indigenous peoples towards strengthening their collectives, solidarity, and actions.
The water protector legal collective is an indigenous-led legal nonprofit that provides support and advocacy for indigenous peoples and original nations, the earth, and climate justice movements.
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
Environment next supports individuals, nonprofits and businesses around the world on solutions to complex climate issues. we provide leadership, outreach and communication support, grants, and investments to empower leaders and their ideas…
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…
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Climate Resolve and the most unlike its peers is Indigenous Women Rising Indigeous Women Rising. 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 26 years old; the field is 11. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 28% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 19% 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.
82 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. 82 of the 99 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 Emory University ↗
- Who funds Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Power and Potential Inc ↗
- Who funds HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES ↗
- Who funds HOMIES UNIDOS INC ↗
- Who funds GREENPEACE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds SCHOLARMATCH INC ↗
- Who funds GIRLS INCORPORATED OF SANTA FE INC ↗
- Who funds THOMASVILLE COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Vermont Independent Media Inc ↗
- Who funds THE HAWKINS PROJECT ↗
- Who funds CURIOUS COMMUNICATIONS INC ↗
- Who funds WORKING AMERICA EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds INDIGENOUS WOMEN RISING INDIGEOUS WOMEN RISING ↗
- Who funds Esperanza Shelter Inc ↗
- Who funds YOUNG AUTHORS GREENHOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds ROCKINGHAM ARTS AND MUSEUM PROJECT ↗
- Who funds THE RAPE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BELLOWS FALLS HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds WOMENS COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds IMMIGRANT FAMILIES TOGETHER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEW GEORGIA PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds HEAL THE BAY ↗
- Who funds PICO YOUTH & FAMILY CENTER ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF BALLONA WETLANDS ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES DRAMA CLUB INC ↗
- Who funds CLIMATE RESOLVE ↗
- Who funds Gabrielino-Tongva Springs Foundation ↗
- Who funds PUTNEY COMMUNITY CARES INC ↗
- Who funds CLIMATE EMERGENCY FUND ↗
- Who funds VOICES FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE ↗
- Who funds NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY ↗
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: Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Tides Foundation · California Community Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Liberty Hill Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Annenberg Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Rsf Social Finance Inc · Impactassetsinc · Resources Legacy Fund · The Ford 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 Fonda Family Foundation Inc 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.
- Retreat Farm Ltd — 25% of income from government
- Amherst Cinema Arts Center Inc — 1% of income from government
- Rutgers University Foundation — 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Fonda Family Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to The Fonda Family 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.