· Private foundation
McPike Zima Charitable Foundation US
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 FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $10k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $131k
- $50k–250k15 grants · $1.2M
- $250k+1 grant · $265k
Anchored by a single position — about 98% of reported assets are held in Vidaquant Llc.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PERRY INSTITUTE FOR MARINE SCIENCE | $265,000 |
| T1 INTERNATIONAL | $192,096 |
| OUTLAW OCEAN PROJECT | $175,000 |
| FRIENDS OF AFRICA AMINI FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| THE PAPAHANAUMOKUAKEA DEBRIS PR | $80,000 |
| MOVING WINDMILL PROJECT | $75,000 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIG AGENCY | $75,000 |
| AMAZON FRONTLINES | $65,000 |
| MOORE INSTITUTE FOR PLASTIC POL | $62,000 |
| BIMINI BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION FOUNDATION | $60,000 |
| THE STORY OF STUFF PROJECT | $55,000 |
| FRIENDS OF THE ENVIRONMENT | $50,000 |
| OCEANS FORWARD | $50,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $50,000 |
| OCEAN RESCUE ALLIANCE | $50,000 |
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 49% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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 McPike Zima Charitable Foundation US’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 16% — 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 +20% since the first grant, against +17% for the ones you funded once.
22 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 6 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, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $250k 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
- OPOO PROJECT4× · 2021–2024 · $676k · revenue +241%
- TSTHE SONIA NABETA FOUNDATION3× · 2019–2022 · $539k · revenue +147% · 33% of their budget
- PIPERRY INSTITUTE FOR MARINE SCIENCE3× · 2022–2024 · $480k · revenue +52%
Funded once
- 3A3 AXIS ADVISORSone grant, 2021 · $115k
- HFHOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN FOUNDATIONone grant, 2018 · $100k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2020 · $65k
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.
Save threatened marine life using pioneering research, education, and sustainable conservation solutions
Protecting and promoting the marine biodiversity of Hawai'i through coral restoration, ecological monitoring, regenerative tourism, and cultural integration
The institutes mission is to cultivate a responsibility for the natural environment and our human communities through interdisciplinary science education.
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
Expose the truth. protect the planet. we expose complex, global environmental issues and promote advocacy through the use of film, photography, social media, and collaboration.
International Rivers protects rivers and defends the rights of communities that depend on them.
To empower the global underwater science community with the tools and expertise required to explore the greatest depths of the planet's largest and deepest bodies of water and return with discoveries that amaze and inspire a global…
Global Forest Generation restores and protects forest ecosystems in partnership with grassroots leaders and local communities across vast landscapes which play a critical role in preserving water, protecting biodiversity, storing carbon,…
OneReefs mission is to ensure healthy ocean ecosystems and thriving coastal communities across the Pacific.
The nmmf's mission is to improve and protect life for marine mammals, humans, and our shared oceans through science, service, and education. our vision is to be the leading laboratory in marine mammal science, where critical questions…
To inspire people to care for and protect our ocean planet through education and research.
To advocate for policy changes by governments and corporations in order to preserve ocean life and return the oceans to their former abundance.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Florida Atlantic University Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Warrior Flow Foundation Inc. 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 13 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% 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.
23 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. 23 of the 40 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 President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds OO PROJECT ↗
- Who funds T1INTERNATIONAL USA T1International ↗
- Who funds Lifespan Research Institution ↗
- Who funds THE SONIA NABETA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PERRY INSTITUTE FOR MARINE SCIENCE ↗
- Who funds THE STORY OF STUFF PROJECT ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ↗
- Who funds AMAZON FRONTLINES ↗
- Who funds GUARDIANORG FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BIMINI BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE ENVIRONMENT INC ↗
- Who funds OCEANS FORWARD ↗
- Who funds MASS DESIGN GROUP LTD ↗
- Who funds Ocean Rescue Alliance Inc ↗
- Who funds FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SHARKS4KIDS INC ↗
- Who funds THE WARRIOR FLOW FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNEWS NETWORK ↗
- Who funds MAUI HUB ↗
- Who funds The Abraham Foundation ↗
- Who funds UNITED PLANT SAVERS ↗
- Who funds Water for South Sudan Inc ↗
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: Globalgiving Foundation Inc · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Rsf Social Finance Inc · The Ford Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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 McPike Zima Charitable Foundation US 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% 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 McPike Zima Charitable Foundation US?
Find your warmest path to McPike Zima Charitable Foundation US 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.