Skip to content
The Holocene Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Holocene 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.

$60M
Granted FY2024still arriving
28
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$56M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Philanthropy$58MEnvironment$15MAnimals$850kRecreation & Sports$550kEducation$75kOther$0
02FY2024 · 28 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $175k
  • $50k–250k12 grants · $1.4M
  • $250k+8 grants · $59M
$100,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHABOT FAMILY DAF - VANGUARD$56,403,675
EARTHJUSTICE$400,000
CONSERVATION LANDS FOUNDATION$400,000
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$350,000
CLIMATE SOLUTIONS$300,000
THE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE$300,000
CONSERVATION NORTHWEST$250,000
THE MOUNTAINEERS$250,000
TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND$200,000
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE$200,000
NRDC$150,000
OUTDOOR ALLIANCE$150,000
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND$150,000
Individual grant recipient$100,000
SALMON-SAFE INC$100,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 8% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%NRDC: $150k → 17%OREGON DESERT LAND TRUST: $150k → 10%CHABOT FAMILY DAF - VANGUARD: $56.4M → 7%CONSERVATION LANDS FOUNDATION: $400k → 12%CLIMATE SOLUTIONS: $300k → 9%NRDC: $150k → 17%THE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $300k → 10%CHABOT FAMILY DAF - VANGUARD: $561k → 7%CONSERVATION LANDS FOUNDATION: $400k → 12%CLIMATE SOLUTIONS: $300k → 9%NRDC: $150k → 17%THE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $300k → 10%CHABOT FAMILY DAF - VANGUARD: $500k → 7%CONSERVATION LANDS FOUNDATION: $400k → 12%CLIMATE SOLUTIONS: $300k → 9%NRDC: $150k → 17%THE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $300k → 10%CHABOT FAMILY DAF - VANGUARD: $185k → 7%CONSERVATION LANDS FOUNDATION: $300k → 12%CLIMATE SOLUTIONS: $225k → 9%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $150k → 14%THE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $300k → 10%CONSERVATION LANDS FOUNDATION: $300k → 12%CLIMATE SOLUTIONS: $150k → 9%THE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $300k → 10%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $150k → 14%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $533k → 9%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $450k → 9%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $350k → 9%DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE: $200k → 14%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $350k → 9%DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE: $200k → 14%DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE: $200k → 14%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $334k → 9%DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE: $200k → 14%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $333k → 9%THE MOUNTAINEERS: $250k → 9%THE MOUNTAINEERS: $250k → 9%CONSERVATION NORTHWEST: $250k → 9%TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $350k → 9%TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $200k → 9%TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $200k → 9%TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $200k → 9%EARTHJUSTICE: $400k → 9%EARTHJUSTICE: $400k → 9%EARTHJUSTICE: $400k → 9%EARTHJUSTICE: $400k → 9%EARTHJUSTICE: $200k → 9%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.
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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$71M · 27 repeat orgs$470k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +33% since the first grant, against -18% for those funded once.

27 repeat relationships: 26 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

27
3

Total granted

$71M
$370k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
-18%

Still filing today

89%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $100k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentPhilanthropyAnimalsCommunity ImprovementPublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • CL
    Conservation Lands Foundation
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.8M · revenue +62%
  • CS
    CLIMATE SOLUTIONS
    6× · 2019–2024 · $1.4M · revenue +122%
  • THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND
    4× · 2021–2024 · $950k · revenue +109%

Funded once

  • OD
    OREGON DESERT LAND TRUST
    one grant, 2021 · $150k · revenue -86%
  • CW
    CLEAN WASHINGTON WATERS
    one grant, 2019 · $150k
  • LO
    LIVE OCEAN
    one grant, 2022 · $70k · 46% of their budget
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
Washington Forest Law Center

Dedicated to protecting the world's natural environment on behalf of the public by serving as a public interest law firm. refer to schedule o, part iii, line 4a, for list of litigated cases or advocacy work.

—
2
Whatcom Land Trust

The mission of the Whatcom Land Trust is to preserve and protect wildlife habitat, scenic, agricultural and open space lands in Whatcom County for future generations by securing interests in land and promoting land stewardship.

Environment
3
Center for Environmental Law & Policy

The Center for Environmental Law & Policy is a statewide organization whose mission is to protect, preserve and restore Washington's waters through education, advocacy, policy reform, and public interest litigation.

Environment
4
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
5
Alaska Wildlife Alliance

Support ecosystem-based wildlife management by increasing public awareness of wildlife issues, responding to information requests, advocating for science-based wildlife habitat management through proposal and comment submissions, and…

Environment
6
Western Rivers Conservancy

Western rivers conservancy's mission is to protect outstanding river ecosystems in the western united states. continued on schedule o.we acquire land to conserve critical habitat, provide public access for compatible use and enjoyment, and…

Environment
7
Washington Wild

Washington wild protects and restores wild lands and waters in washington state through advocacy, education and civic engagement.

Animals
8
Nw Energy Coalition

The NW Energy Coalition is an alliance of over 100 environmental, civic, and human service organizations, utilities, and businesses in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia, plus many individual members. The NW Energy…

—
9
Northwest Environmental Advocates

Work through advocacy and education to use federal environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act to protect and restore water quality and habit in the Pacific Northwest and nationwide.

Environment
10
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.

—
11
Center for Sustainable Economy

Promoting economic sustainability

Environment
12
Environment Now
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Washington Conservation Action Education Fund; the most unlike its peers is Live Ocean. 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

28 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. 28 of the 32 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
27/28
Grantees still filing
17/28
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHABOT FAMILY DAF - VANGUARD: $57,649,675 · OtherCHABOT FAMILY DAF - VANGUARDTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $2,400,000 · Other+6 more: $3,775,000 · Other+6 moreConservation Lands Foundation: $1,800,000 · EnvironmentConservatio…THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $950,000 · EnvironmentTHE TRUST F…Outdoor Alliance: $650,000 · EnvironmentOutdoor All…ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $600,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENT…SALMON-SAFE INC: $600,000 · EnvironmentSALMON-SAFE…NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $600,000 · EnvironmentNATURAL RES…THE MOUNTAINEERS: $500,000 · EnvironmentTHE MOUNTAI…CONSERVATION NW: $300,000 · Environment+11 more: $1,670,000 · Environment+11 moreTHE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $1,500,000 · Philanthropy+1 more: $30,000 · PhilanthropyDefenders of Wildlife: $850,000 · AnimalsFRIENDS OF SEATTLE WATERFRONT: $300,000 · Community ImprovementRACHEL'S NETWORK INC: $75,000 · Public Safety & Disaster
Other$63,824,675Environment$7,670,000Philanthropy$1,530,000Animals$850,000Community Improvement$300,000Public Safety & Disaster$75,000

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 budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $2,400,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetConservation Lands Foundation: $1,800,000 over 5y, 7.2% of budgetTHE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $1,500,000 over 5y, 15% of budgetCLIMATE SOLUTIONS: $1,375,000 over 6y, 7.4% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $950,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetDefenders of Wildlife: $850,000 over 5y, 0.6% of budgetOutdoor Alliance: $650,000 over 5y, 12% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $600,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetSALMON-SAFE INC: $600,000 over 6y, 18% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $600,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTHE MOUNTAINEERS: $500,000 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetCONSERVATION NW: $300,000 over 2y, 6.4% of budgetFRIENDS OF SEATTLE WATERFRONT: $300,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetWASHINGTON CONSERVATION ACTION EDUCATION FUND: $250,000 over 5y, 1.2% of budgetThe Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust: $240,000 over 6y, 1.4% of budgetONE EARTH PHILANTHROPY: $200,000 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetWASHINGTON WATER TRUST: $150,000 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetOREGON DESERT LAND TRUST: $150,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetEarthGen Fka WA Green Schools: $135,000 over 6y, 2.7% of budgetWASHINGTON TRAILS ASSOCIATION: $125,000 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetWashington Wildlife & Recreation Coalition: $125,000 over 5y, 7.1% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $125,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetSPARK NORTHWEST: $125,000 over 5y, 2.9% of budgetISLANDWOOD: $75,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetRACHEL'S NETWORK INC: $75,000 over 3y, 1.6% of budgetLIVE OCEAN: $70,000 over 1y, 46% of budgetSOCIAL VENTURE PARTNERS: $30,000 over 5y, 1.1% 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.

  • Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds Conservation Lands Foundation ↗
  • Who funds THE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds CLIMATE SOLUTIONS ↗
  • Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
  • Who funds Defenders of Wildlife ↗
  • Who funds Outdoor Alliance ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
  • Who funds SALMON-SAFE INC ↗
  • Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds THE MOUNTAINEERS ↗
  • Who funds CONSERVATION NW ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF SEATTLE WATERFRONT ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON CONSERVATION ACTION EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds The Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust ↗
  • Who funds ONE EARTH PHILANTHROPY ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON WATER TRUST ↗
  • Who funds OREGON DESERT LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds CLEAN WASHINGTON WATERS ↗
  • Who funds EarthGen Fka WA Green Schools ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON TRAILS ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds Washington Wildlife & Recreation Coalition ↗
  • Who funds LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds SPARK NORTHWEST ↗
  • Who funds ISLANDWOOD ↗
  • Who funds RACHEL'S NETWORK INC ↗
  • Who funds LIVE OCEAN ↗
  • Who funds SOCIAL VENTURE PARTNERS ↗

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.

Seattle FoundationThe Bullitt FoundationThe Nature ConservancyThe Russell Family Fo…Moccasin Lake Foundat…The Norcliffe Foundat…PatagoniaorgImpactassetsincTreeline FoundationThe GreerSolien FundKaleidoscope Foundati…The Satterberg Founda…
Seattle FoundationWA28.7× affinity13 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Seattle Foundation · The Bullitt Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · The Russell Family Foundation · Moccasin Lake Foundation · The Norcliffe Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Impactassetsinc · Treeline Foundation · The GreerSolien Fund · Kaleidoscope Foundation · The Satterberg Foundation Inc

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 Holocene Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Holocene Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%13%28%50%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
    1get no government money at all
    11report 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 Holocene Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Holocene 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.

    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 32 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Holocene’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