· Private foundation
The Richard W & Elaine E Barrett 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.
Read this first · the figures below need context
91% of The Richard W & Elaine E Barrett Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to The Board Of Trustees Of The Leland Stanford Junior University, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2019, the last year The Richard W & Elaine E Barrett Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 10 organizations, $632k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
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 · FY2019
- Under $10k3 grants · $10k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $138k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $483k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| EAGLE VALLEY LAND TRUST | $200,000 |
| HELPERS UNITED | $117,935 |
| ANIMAL FRIENDS ALLIANCE | $65,000 |
| HELPERS UNITED | $50,400 |
| GREEN UP OUR SCHOOLS | $50,000 |
| AFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA | $38,000 |
| NORTH AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ISRAEL OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH | $34,500 |
| WILDAID | $25,000 |
| WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK | $15,000 |
| AFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA | $15,000 |
| PRARIE DOG COALITION | $10,843 |
| WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK | $5,000 |
| SOS OUTREACH | $2,750 |
| UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT FOUNDATION | $2,110 |
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 (FY17–21, $389k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 10% of The Richard W & Elaine E Barrett 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.
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.
8 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2019, 3 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call). Read against FY2019, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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, 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
- UOUNIVERSITY OF VERMONT AND STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC5× · 2017–2022 · $172k · revenue +35%
- AFANIMAL FRIENDS ALLIANCE2× · 2019–2022 · $71k · revenue +109%
- SOSOS OUTREACH3× · 2019–2023 · $26k · revenue +113%
Funded once
- SGSTANFORD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESSone grant, 2018 · $200k
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue +62%- THTHE HUMANE SOCIETY OF BOULDER VALLEY INCone grant, 2017 · $3k · revenue +17%
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.
Protecting india's precious wildlife from poaching, habitat loss, and human exploitation since 1995.
Endangered Species International is strongly committed to reversing the trend of human-induced species extinction, saving endangered animals, and preserving wild places.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Wildlife alliance is the leader in direct protection of forests and wildlife in tropical asia. our mission is to combat deforestation, biodiversity loss, climate change, and poverty by partnering with local communities and governments.…
IFAWs strategy focuses on improving the welfare of individual animals and the conservation status of wildlife populations in priority habitats through on-the-ground efforts community engagement and global advocacy. Our dual emphasis on…
The international snow leopard trust aims to ethically conserve snow leopards and their high mountain ecosystems through partnerships with indigenous peoples and local communities, and through research to improve the understanding of snow…
Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities.
The montana wildlife federation is a statewide conservation organization dedicated to protecting wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public access for outdoor recreation.
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…
International bird rescue's mission is to inspire people to act toward balance with the natural world by rescuing waterbirds in crisis.
Through management of oakland zoo, the conservation society of california deepens connection with animals, saves wildlife, and inspires champions for the natural world.
Wildearth guardians works to protect and restore the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the american west.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is African Parks Foundation of America and the most unlike its peers is Green Up Our Schools. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
18 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. 18 of the 22 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 MILLS COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds HELPERS UNITED INC ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds EAGLE VALLEY LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT AND STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds GREEN UP OUR SCHOOLS ↗
- Who funds ANIMAL FRIENDS ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds NORTH AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ISRAEL OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH INC ↗
- Who funds SOS OUTREACH ↗
- Who funds ASSERT THE SECOND RESPONDERS INC ↗
- Who funds WILDAID INC ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds EMERALD COAST WILDLIFE REFUGE INC ↗
- Who funds THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF BOULDER VALLEY INC ↗
- Who funds Birds of Prey Foundation ↗
- Who funds RAINFOREST TRUST ↗
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: Amg Charitable Gift Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Richard W & Elaine E Barrett 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.
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.