Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation Dossiers
Plinth

· Private foundation

The Jena & Michael King Foundation

Its FY2023 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$8k
Granted FY2023
1
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$8k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What you fund
0172% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2023.

Environment$305kEducation$55kPublic Safety & Disaster$46kHealth$31kHuman Services$28kScience & Tech$19kArts & Culture$18kFood & Nutrition$16kInternational$11kOther$204k
02FY2023 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$7,650
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
A Sense of Home$7,650
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–23, $28k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, 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.

area typical 11%A Sense of Home: $8k → 14%FOOD ON FOOT: $392 → 14%YOUNG EISNER SCHOLARS: $5k → 14%YOUNG EISNER SCHOLARS: $5k → 14%YOUNG EISNER SCHOLARS: $5k → 14%YOUNG EISNER SCHOLARS: $5k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

MT
MI
NY
MA
RI
CA
CO
VA
MD
DC
OK
GA

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

41%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$295k · 6 repeat orgs$430k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2023, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
35

Total granted

$295k
$422k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-28%
+88%

Still filing today

67%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $8k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
EnvironmentHealthEducationHuman ServicesArts & CultureScience & TechOther

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

  • OI
    OCEANA INC
    2× · 2017–2020 · $200k · revenue -28%
  • PF
    PEOPLE FOR FOOD AND LAND FOUNDATION
    2× · 2017–2020 · $42k
  • YE
    Young Eisner Scholars
    3× · 2017–2020 · $20k · revenue -40%

Funded once

  • RC
    REDFORD CENTER INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $100k · revenue +176%
  • CS
    CROSSROADS SCHOOL FOR ARTS AND SCIENCES
    one grant, 2017 · $45k · revenue +24%
  • PF
    People Food and Land Foundationgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $40k · revenue +477%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
2
One Earth Philanthropy

One Earth's mission is to empower everyone, everywhere, with the knowledge, inspiration, and opportunity to heal the Earth and reclaim our future.

Environment
3
Ocean Conservancy

Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.

Environment
4
Friends of the Earth

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…

Environment
5
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
6
Rainforest Action Network

Rainforest Action Network (RAN) works toward a world where the rights and dignity of all communities are respected and where healthy forests, a stable climate and wild biodiversity are protected and celebrated.

Environment
7
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
8
Chile-California Council

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…

International
9
Climate Foundation

To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.

Science & Tech
10
Rainforest Alliance Inc

RA works at the intersection of business, agriculture & forests to improve lives & protect nature by transforming how land is used, production of goods & consumer choices.

—
11
Environment Now
—
12
Sustainable Conservation

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…

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mongabay Org Corp and the most unlike its peers is Detroit Dirt Foundation. 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.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyLand Conservation Organizat…Education Equity LeadershipChristian Missionary Organi…Environmental Advocacy Orga…Community Arts OrganizationsUrban Agriculture & Food Ac…
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number24%0%<5yr15%4%5–10yr20%33%10–20yr17%38%20–35yr11%13%35–55yr13%13%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value24%0%<5yr15%8%5–10yr20%31%10–20yr17%45%20–35yr11%8%35–55yr13%9%55yr+

The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
3%1/31
the rest of the field
14%
26,003/186,947

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.

04the grantee network

30 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. 30 of the 44 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
10
Early backer (in before they grew)
28/30
Grantees still filing
20/30
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

OCEANA INC — $200,000 · EnvironmentOCEANA INCREDFORD CENTER INC — $100,000 · EnvironmentREDFORD CENTER INC+2 more — $4,500 · EnvironmentPEOPLE FOR FOOD AND LAND FOUNDATION — $41,700 · OtherPEOPLE FOR FOOD AND LAND FOUNDATIONPeople Food and Land Foundation — $40,460 · OtherPeople Food and Land FoundationCOMMUNITY PARTNERS READY TO SUCCEED — $30,000 · OtherCOMMUNITY PARTNERS READY TO SUCCEEDNATIONAL GRAZING LANDS COALITION — $20,000 · OtherNATIONAL GRAZING LANDS COALITIONTHE PERENNIAL FARMING INITIATIVE — $12,000 · OtherONE MONTANA — $10,000 · OtherBEN SHAPIRO FOUNDATION — $10,000 · OtherTHE OFFSET PROJECT INC — $10,000 · OtherCREATIVE VISIONS FOUNDATION — $10,000 · OtherKISS THE GROUND — $16,000 · OtherKISS THE GROUNDEquality Now Inc — $10,000 · Other+15 more — $38,423 · Other+15 moreCROSSROADS SCHOOL FOR ARTS AND SCIENCES — $45,000 · EducationPROJECT DRAWDOWN — $5,000 · EducationLA COMPOST — $5,000 · EducationMALIBU FOUNDATION — $40,000 · Public Safety & DisasterNETWORK FOR GOOD — $6,000 · Public Safety & DisasterANGELS AT RISK — $15,000 · HealthSUGAR RAY LEONARD FOUNDATION — $10,000 · HealthVIP COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER INC — $5,000 · Health+1 more — $1,000 · HealthYoung Eisner Scholars — $20,000 · Human ServicesA SENSE OF HOME — $7,650 · Human Services+1 more — $392 · Human ServicesWomen's Earth and Climate Action Network — $15,000 · Science & TechAMAZON CONSERVATION TEAM — $3,500 · Science & Tech
Environment$304,500Other$248,583Education$55,000Public Safety & Disaster$46,000Health$31,000Human Services$28,042Science & Tech$18,500

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetOCEANA INC — $200,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetREDFORD CENTER INC — $100,000 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetCROSSROADS SCHOOL FOR ARTS AND SCIENCES — $45,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMALIBU FOUNDATION — $40,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetYoung Eisner Scholars — $20,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetKISS THE GROUND — $16,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetWomen's Earth and Climate Action Network — $15,000 over 1y, 5.8% of budgetANGELS AT RISK — $15,000 over 2y, 4.8% of budgetONE MONTANA — $10,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetCREATIVE VISIONS FOUNDATION — $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetEquality Now Inc — $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSUGAR RAY LEONARD FOUNDATION — $10,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetTHE OFFSET PROJECT INC — $10,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetA SENSE OF HOME — $7,650 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE WALDEN WOODS PROJECT — $6,505 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetNETWORK FOR GOOD — $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVIP COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER INC — $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPROJECT DRAWDOWN — $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetLA COMPOST — $5,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetDETROIT DIRT FOUNDATION — $5,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetAMAZON CONSERVATION TEAM — $3,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSMILE TRAIN INC — $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMONGABAY ORG CORP — $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE — $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetASPEN ART MUSEUM — $1,875 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetChildren's Hospital Los Angeles — $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY — $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC — $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFOOD ON FOOT — $392 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
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.

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.

Jewish Community Foun…Rockefeller Philanthr…California Community …ImpactassetsincMorgan Stanley Global…National Philanthropi…Fidelity Investments …American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Jewish Community Foundation of Los AngelesCA17× affinity6 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · California Community Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 The Jena & Michael King 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.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%your share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 6%
  • The Walden Woods Project — 6% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get 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
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
typical government reliance, FY20–25

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.

05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to The Jena & Michael King Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The Jena & Michael King 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 44 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

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 camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines