Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Margot Macdougall Family Foundation

Its FY2026 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$6k
Granted FY2026still arriving
1
Grants FY2026still arriving
1
States reached
$6k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of The Margot Macdougall Family Foundation’s FY2026 grant dollars went to American Endowment Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2026 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Organizations named directly on the return

2
’17
1
’18
1
’22
1
’23
2
’24
3
’25
0
’26

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Philanthropy$2.5MEnvironment$1.3MArts & Culture$100kEducation$40kCommunity Improvement$5kRecreation & Sports$4k
02FY2026 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$6,060
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMERICAN ENDOWMENT FUND$6,060
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 (FY22–22, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%CHALLENGED ATHLETES FOUNDATION: $1k → 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.
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
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
Resource Renewal Institute

The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.

Environment
2
Amazon Conservation Team

The amazon conservation team (act) partners with indigenous and other local communities to protect tropical forests and strengthen traditional culture.

Science & Tech
3
Western Resource Advocates

Western Resource Advocates (WRA) is a regional nonprofit advocacy organization fighting climate change and its impacts to sustain the environment, economy, and people of the West. As the region's go-to experts for more than three decades,…

Crime & Legal
4
Conservation International Foundation

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

Environment
5
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
6
Institute for Journalism & Natural Resources

The organization pursues higher standards of news coverage of natural resources and the environment -- standards of accuracy, fairness, balance, depth and context.

Arts & Culture
7
Western Environmental Law Center

Public interest law firm - the western environmental law center uses the power of the law to foster thriving, resilient western u.s. lands, waters, wildlife, and communities in the face of a changing climate. we envision a thriving west,…

—
8
Conservation Law Foundation Inc

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,…

Environment
9
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
10
Asociacion Interamericana Para La Defensa Del Ambiente

To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.

Crime & Legal
11
Natural Resources Defense Council Inc

We safeguard the earth: its people, its plants and animals, and (see schedule o) the natural systems on which all life depends. we work to restore the integrity of the elements that sustain life - air, land, and water - to defend…

Environment
12
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.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Imagine Worldwide; the most unlike its peers is Braided River. 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

9 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 of the 10 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
3/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AMERICAN ENDOWMENT FOUNDATION: $2,540,222 · PhilanthropyAMERICAN ENDOWMENT FOUNDATIONBRAIDED RIVER: $1,250,000 · EnvironmentBRAIDED RIVER+1 more: $3,615 · EnvironmentCALIFORNIA HERITAGE INDIGENOUS RESEARCH PROJECT: $100,000 · Arts & CultureTHE LEARNING ACCELERATOR: $15,000 · EducationLEADERFLOW INC: $10,000 · EducationMARIN COUNTY BICYCLE COALITION: $2,500 · EducationIMAGINE WORLDWIDE: $15,000 · Community ImprovementCOMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR LEADERFLOW PROJECT: $5,000 · OtherCHALLENGED ATHLETES INC: $1,000 · Human Services
Philanthropy$2,540,222Environment$1,253,615Arts & Culture$100,000Education$27,500Community Improvement$15,000Other$5,000Human Services$1,000

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 budgetBRAIDED RIVER: $1,250,000 over 2y, 73% of budgetCALIFORNIA HERITAGE INDIGENOUS RESEARCH PROJECT: $100,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetIMAGINE WORLDWIDE: $15,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHE LEARNING ACCELERATOR: $15,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetLEADERFLOW INC: $10,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE: $3,615 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMARIN COUNTY BICYCLE COALITION: $2,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCHALLENGED ATHLETES INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

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.

Marin Community FoundationCA13.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Marin Community Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile 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 Margot Macdougall Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Margot Macdougall Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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.

    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 10 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 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Margot Macdougall Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph