· Private foundation
The Seaver Institute
Its FY2023 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 placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2023.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2023
- Under $10k61 grants · $174k
- $10k–50k11 grants · $184k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $715k
- $250k+2 grants · $650k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SUSTAINABLE CONSERVATION | $400,000 |
| MOUNT SAINT MARY'S UNIVERSITY | $250,000 |
| SAN DIEGO ZOO WILDLIFE ALLIANCE | $247,000 |
| UCLA FOUNDATION | $150,000 |
| UC SANTA CRUZ | $110,000 |
| ISLAND CONSERVATION | $105,000 |
| THE GREATER LOS ANGELES ZOO ASSOCIA | $102,500 |
| SCRIPPS COLLEGE | $27,500 |
| CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY | $25,000 |
| ARCS FOUNDATION INC | $20,000 |
| JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF SOUTHERN CALI | $20,000 |
| UNIV SYSTEM OF MARYLAND FOUNDATION | $20,000 |
| MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY | $16,000 |
| GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL | $15,000 |
| POMONA COLLEGE | $10,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY21–23, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 86% 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.
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 +29% since the first grant, against +23% for the ones you funded once.
63 repeat relationships — 54 still active in FY2023, 9 since wound down; 20 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (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 FY2023, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $79k 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
- ZSZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO3× · 2021–2023 · $657k · revenue +23%
- SCSustainable Conservation2× · 2022–2023 · $600k · revenue +65%
- MSMOUNT SAINT MARY'S UNIVERSITY2× · 2022–2023 · $275k · revenue +2%
Funded once
- MSMARLBOROUGH SCHOOLone grant, 2021 · $253k · revenue +12%
- JEJOINT EDUCATION PROJECT - USCone grant, 2022 · $25k
- STSAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUEone grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue +24%
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.
Scu is a catholic and jesuit institution that makes student learning its central focus, promotes faculty and staff learning in its various forms, and exhibits organizational learning.
A diverse and sustainable learning community dedicated to discovery and excellence in teaching, scholarship and practice, pacific university inspires students to think, care, create and pursue justice in our world.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
Pitzer College produces engaged socially responsible citizens of the world through an academically rigorous, interdisciplinary liberal arts education emphasizing social justice, intercultural understanding and environmental sensitivity.…
The university of la verne offers a distinctive and relevant educational experience to a diverse population of traditional-age, adult, and graduate learners, preparing them for successful careers and a commitment to lifelong learning…
To provide a superior, student-centered learning experience integrating liberal arts and professional education and preparing individuals for lasting achievement and responsible leadership in their careers and communities.
The association serves its members by creating resources that enable california school administrators to develop and apply creative leadership and management skills and in turn, improve the educational process for all students.
We welcome, educate, and empower a diverse community of learners for lives of meaning, impact, and joy.
California western school of law is an independent, aba/aals and wasc senior college and university commission (wscuc) accredited s.d. law school that prepares graduates for the practice of law through a carefully sequenced program of…
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Center for Family Philanthropy Inc and the most unlike its peers is Circle Family Center. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 41 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
91 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. 91 of the 129 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 ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds Sustainable Conservation ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds MOUNT SAINT MARY'S UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds MARLBOROUGH SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds California Native Plant Society ↗
- Who funds ISLAND CONSERVATION ↗
- Who funds UCLA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PIH Health Good Samaritan Hospital ↗
- Who funds GREATER LOS ANGELES ZOOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Scripps College ↗
- Who funds JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INC ↗
- Who funds DIGITAL NEST INC ↗
- Who funds POMONA COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds THE RAPE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SWARTHMORE COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES ↗
- Who funds SAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds VOICES OF ASCENSION INC ↗
- Who funds COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS INC ↗
- Who funds Community Bridges ↗
- Who funds HARVARD-WESTLAKE SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds SANTA CATALINA ISLAND CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds DON BOSCO TECHNICAL INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds SCHOOL FOR FIELD STUDIES INC ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES REGIONAL FOOD BANK ↗
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 Seaver Institute · Community Foundation Santa Cruz County · The Annenberg Foundation · California Community Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Monterey Peninsula Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Stern Sidney Memorial Tuw · The Ahmanson Foundation · The J Miles and Rosanne Reiter Family Foundation · The Confidence 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 Seaver Institute 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.
- Elso Inc — 100% of income from government
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 11% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston College — 3% 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.