Skip to content

· 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.

$9.5M
Granted FY2024still arriving
81
Grants FY2024still arriving
15
States reached
$1.1M
Largest
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Environment$27MAnimals$12MInternational$1.4MFood & Nutrition$582kArts & Culture$506kYouth Development$165kPublic Safety & Disaster$100kPhilanthropy$64kOther$0
02FY2024 · 81 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k8 grants · $41k
  • $10k–50k20 grants · $392k
  • $50k–250k45 grants · $5.2M
  • $250k+8 grants · $3.9M
$100,000
Median grant
15
States reached
$230M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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:

Its 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CITIZENS FOR A BETTER FLATHEAD: $3k → 11%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.

Which US states its grants reach

VT
ID
MT
MN
IL
WI
NY
MA
OR
NJ
CA
CO
MO
VA
MD
DE
DC
TX
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 33% of The Liz Claiborne & Art Ortenberg Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 20% of the giving stays in NY; by stated purpose, 4%.

The Liz Claiborne & Art Ortenberg Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 51% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$39M · 50 repeat orgs$1.9M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +52% since the first grant, against +21% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

50
15

Total granted

$39M
$792k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+52%
+21%

Still filing today

74%
53%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.1M went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentAnimalsScience & TechInternationalCommunity ImprovementHealthOther
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

  • WC
    Wildlife Conservation Society
    5× · 2020–2024 · $7.5M · revenue +57%
  • REWILD
    4× · 2021–2024 · $4.3M · revenue +101%
  • MI
    MALIASILI INITIATIVES INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $2.7M · revenue +80%

Funded once

  • FO
    FRIENDS OF BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $204k · revenue +26%
  • GB
    GREAT BURN STUDY GROUP dba Great Burn Conservation Alliancegraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $100k · revenue +76% · 31% of their budget
  • WO
    WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS EDUCATION PROJECT
    one grant, 2020 · $90k · revenue +12%
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
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
2
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
3
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
4
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
5
Montana Wildlife Federation

The montana wildlife federation is a statewide conservation organization dedicated to protecting wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public access for outdoor recreation.

Animals
6
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.

—
7
Idaho Conservation League Inc

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.

—
8
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.

—
9
Intertribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council
—
10
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
11
Native Ecosystems Council

Promote wildlife habitat

Environment
12
African Wildlife Foundation Inc

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…

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildlife Conservation Network Inc; 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.
05the grantee network

53 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. 53 of the 76 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.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
17
Early backer (in before they grew)
53/53
Grantees still filing
37/53
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Wildlife Conservation Society: $7,470,924 · AnimalsWildlife Conservation SocietyREWILD: $4,326,074 · AnimalsREWILDWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $1,582,114 · AnimalsWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC+8 more: $1,665,367 · Animals+8 moreHEART OF THE ROCKIES: $5,050,000 · OtherHEART OF THE ROCKIESMAKEWAY FOUNDATION: $930,000 · OtherMAKEWAY FOUNDATIONTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $910,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYTHE PEREGRINE FUND INC: $719,296 · OtherINTERNATIONAL WILDERNESS LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION INC: $630,000 · OtherSCHOOL OF AGRONOMY ESSA: $531,898 · OtherYELLOWSTONE TO YUKON INITIATIVE: $480,000 · Other+32 more: $4,528,233 · Other+32 moreMALIASILI INITIATIVES INC: $2,732,573 · EnvironmentMALIASILI INITIATIVES IN…GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION: $1,350,814 · EnvironmentGREATER YELLOWSTONE COAL…MONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION: $745,000 · EnvironmentMONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOC…THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY: $579,500 · EnvironmentTHE WILDERNESS SOCIETYMISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN BOARD OF TRUSTEES: $576,572 · EnvironmentMISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDE…SWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS: $450,000 · EnvironmentBLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC: $410,000 · EnvironmentCLARK FORK COALITION: $410,000 · Environment+13 more: $1,619,000 · Environment+13 moreAFRICAN CONSERVATION CENTRE US: $1,586,700 · EducationPAMS FOUNDATION INC: $1,211,924 · InternationalWORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $50,000 · InternationalMICA GROUP INC: $505,000 · Arts & CultureDOROBO FUND FOR TANZANIA INC: $423,800 · Housing & Shelter
Animals$15,044,479Other$13,779,427Environment$8,873,459Education$1,586,700International$1,261,924Arts & Culture$505,000Housing & Shelter$423,800

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 budgetWildlife Conservation Society: $7,470,924 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetREWILD: $4,326,074 over 4y, 5.5% of budgetMALIASILI INITIATIVES INC: $2,732,573 over 5y, 16% of budgetAFRICAN CONSERVATION CENTRE US: $1,586,700 over 5y, 80% of budgetWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $1,582,114 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetGREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION: $1,350,814 over 3y, 8.2% of budgetPAMS FOUNDATION INC: $1,211,924 over 5y, 23% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $910,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetMONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION: $745,000 over 5y, 6.5% of budgetTHE PEREGRINE FUND INC: $719,296 over 5y, 2.8% of budgetINTERNATIONAL WILDERNESS LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION INC: $630,000 over 2y, 6.8% of budgetTHE WILDERNESS SOCIETY: $579,500 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetMISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN BOARD OF TRUSTEES: $576,572 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetMICA GROUP INC: $505,000 over 2y, 10% of budgetSWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS: $450,000 over 4y, 14% of budgetDOROBO FUND FOR TANZANIA INC: $423,800 over 4y, 36% of budgetBLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC: $410,000 over 5y, 4.4% of budgetCLARK FORK COALITION: $410,000 over 5y, 5.1% of budgetWILDLIFE GUARDIANS: $404,900 over 4y, 8.3% of budgetNORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL: $320,000 over 5y, 4.2% of budgetHealth in Harmony: $315,000 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $300,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetSAOLA FOUNDATION INC: $284,250 over 2y, 39% of budgetPark County Environmental Council: $230,000 over 5y, 6.9% of budgetFAUNA & FLORA INTERNATIONAL USA INC: $228,539 over 2y, 8.1% of budgetCLIMATE CONSERVATION DBA CENTER FOR LARGE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION: $219,000 over 2y, 4.1% of budgetPLANET INDONESIA: $207,500 over 2y, 10% of budgetFRIENDS OF BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL INC: $204,400 over 1y, 4.8% of budgetWESTERN LANDOWNERS ALLIANCE: $200,000 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetSpace for Giants USA Inc: $166,667 over 1y, 8.4% of budgetYAAK VALLEY FOREST COUNCIL: $155,000 over 2y, 26% of budgetMontana Outdoor Science School: $145,000 over 3y, 12% of budgetMONTANA NATURAL HISTORY CENTER: $145,000 over 3y, 8.2% of budgetTELLER WILDLIFE REFUGE INC: $130,000 over 3y, 14% of budgetCENTRE FOR WILDLIFE STUDIES INC: $125,150 over 1y, 15% of budgetAMAZON CONSERVATION TEAM: $100,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetTHE MONTANA LAND RELIANCE: $100,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetGREAT BURN STUDY GROUP dba Great Burn Conservation Alliance: $100,000 over 1y, 31% of budgetFRIENDS OF SCOTCHMAN PEAKS WILDERNESS INC: $100,000 over 2y, 18% of budgetTHE GLACIER-TWO MEDICINE ALLIANCE: $100,000 over 2y, 19% of budgetWESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS EDUCATION PROJECT: $90,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetWESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS: $80,077 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetCONSULTATIVE GROUP ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC Biodiversity Funders Grp: $67,200 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetPHILANTHROPY NEW YORK INC: $64,350 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetWORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLINCOLN PARK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFIVE VALLEYS LAND TRUST: $50,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetTHE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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 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 ↗

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.

The High Stakes FoundationMT36.6× affinity15 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Liz Claiborne & Art Ortenberg Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Liz Claiborne & Art Ortenberg Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 20%
  • Centre for Wildlife Studies Inc: 20% of income from government
  • Woodwell Climate Research Center Inc: 11% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
10report 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 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.

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 76 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 Liz Claiborne & Art Ortenberg’s filings →

More from the funding graph