· Private foundation
The Kingfisher Foundation co Evan AbramsFarella Braun
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
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 54% of The Kingfisher Foundation co Evan AbramsFarella Braun’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k3 grants · $92k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $718k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| University of Michigan Art Museum | $248,100 |
| Sustainable Conservation | $125,000 |
| Blakemore Foundation | $110,211 |
| California Water Data Consortium | $100,000 |
| San Mateo Resource Conservation Dis | $75,000 |
| International Seafood Sustainabilit | $60,000 |
| Multiplier | $40,000 |
| EPIC Environ Policy Innovation Cent | $40,000 |
| Public Policy Institute of Californ | $12,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 94% of your 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.
25 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2025, 16 since wound down.
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, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED7× · 2017–2023 · $1.2M · revenue +202%- OCOCEAN CONSERVANCY5× · 2018–2023 · $399k · revenue +31%
DUKE UNIVERSITY2× · 2019–2020 · $300k · revenue +44%
Funded once
- NFNATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $250k · revenue +79%
- UOUnion of Concerned Scientistsone grant, 2022 · $250k
- NFNational Fish Wildlife Foundationone grant, 2018 · $250k
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.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.
To advocate for policy changes by governments and corporations in order to preserve ocean life and return the oceans to their former abundance.
The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species
Conservation law foundation, inc. (clf) protects new england's environment for the benefit of all people and future generations. we use the law, science, and markets to create solutions that preserve and restore our natural resources,…
Climate central, inc. (the organization") is an independent not-for-profit organization of leading scientists, technology experts and communication professionals that are dedicated to researching and reporting on climate change and its…
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…
Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Blakemore Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 30 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
22 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. 22 of the 49 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 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds OCEAN CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds DUKE UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds INTERNEWS NETWORK ↗
- Who funds California Water Data Consortium ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Sustainable Conservation ↗
- Who funds MULTIPLIER ↗
- Who funds THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ↗
- Who funds ISLAND CONSERVATION ↗
- Who funds BLAKEMORE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SEAFOOD HARVESTER OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds RESOURCES LEGACY FUND ↗
- Who funds THE COMMONS INC ↗
- Who funds GREATER FARALLONES ASSOCIATION ↗
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: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Pew Charitable Trusts · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Kingfisher Foundation co Evan AbramsFarella Braun 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.
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 Kingfisher Foundation co Evan AbramsFarella Braun?
Find your warmest path to The Kingfisher Foundation co Evan AbramsFarella Braun 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.