· Private foundation
The Liz Claiborne & Art Ortenberg 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k8 grants · $41k
- $10k–50k20 grants · $392k
- $50k–250k45 grants · $5.2M
- $250k+8 grants · $3.9M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| HEART OF THE ROCKIES | $1,100,000 |
| WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY | $640,888 |
| MALIASILI INITIATIVES | $500,000 |
| WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK | $400,000 |
| WILD FOUNDATION | $400,000 |
| UNIVERSIDAD SAN FRANCISCO DE QUITO | $315,000 |
| MAKEWAY FOUNDATION | $300,000 |
| WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY | $250,000 |
| WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY | $229,139 |
| REWILD | $225,000 |
| WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY | $219,000 |
| PAMS FOUNDATION | $216,463 |
| THE NATURE CONSERVANCY | $200,000 |
| WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK | $198,914 |
| AFRICAN CONSERVATION CENTRE-US | $192,200 |
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 (FY24–24, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 33% of The Liz Claiborne & Art Ortenberg Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 20% of the giving stays in NY; read by stated purpose it is 4% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +52% since the first grant, against +21% for the ones you funded once.
50 repeat relationships — 40 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.1M 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
- WCWildlife Conservation Society5× · 2020–2024 · $7.5M · revenue +57%
REWILD4× · 2021–2024 · $4.3M · revenue +101%- MIMALIASILI INITIATIVES INC5× · 2020–2024 · $2.7M · revenue +80%
Funded once
- FOFRIENDS OF BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $204k · revenue +26%
- GBGREAT BURN STUDY GROUP dba Great Burn Conservation Alliancegraduatedone grant, 2020 · $100k · revenue +76% · 31% of their budget
- WOWESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS EDUCATION PROJECTone grant, 2020 · $90k · revenue +12%
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.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
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…
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
The montana wildlife federation is a statewide conservation organization dedicated to protecting wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public access for outdoor recreation.
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.
Icl's mission is to create a conservation community and pragmatic, enduring solutions that protect and restore the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land and wildlife you love.
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.
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…
Promote wildlife habitat
Awf's mission is to ensure wildlife and wild lands thrive in modern africa. we work to equip african governments, institutions, business, and communities with the tools, insights, and support they need to define, own, and realize a…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildlife Conservation Network Inc and the most unlike its peers is International Stillbirth Alliance Nfp. 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 28 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) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 10% 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.
53 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. 53 of the 76 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 Wildlife Conservation Society ↗
- Who funds REWILD ↗
- Who funds MALIASILI INITIATIVES INC ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN CONSERVATION CENTRE US ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION ↗
- Who funds PAMS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds MONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds THE PEREGRINE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL WILDERNESS LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN BOARD OF TRUSTEES ↗
- Who funds MICA GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds SWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS ↗
- Who funds DOROBO FUND FOR TANZANIA INC ↗
- Who funds BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC ↗
- Who funds CLARK FORK COALITION ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE GUARDIANS ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds Health in Harmony ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds SAOLA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Park County Environmental Council ↗
- Who funds FAUNA & FLORA INTERNATIONAL USA INC ↗
- Who funds CLIMATE CONSERVATION DBA CENTER FOR LARGE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION ↗
- Who funds PLANET INDONESIA ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds WESTERN LANDOWNERS ALLIANCE ↗
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: The High Stakes Foundation · Patagoniaorg · The Kendeda Fund · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Resources Legacy Fund · Montana Community Foundation Inc · Driggers Foundation · Mwc Foundation Inc #0726315 · Cadeau Foundation · Maki Foundation · The Fanwood Foundation · Weeden 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 Liz Claiborne & Art Ortenberg 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.
- Centre for Wildlife Studies Inc — 20% of income from government
- Woodwell Climate Research Center Inc — 11% 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 Liz Claiborne & Art Ortenberg Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Liz Claiborne & Art Ortenberg 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.