· Private foundation
The Springcreek 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k96 grants · $312k
- $10k–50k20 grants · $321k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| The New Village School | $40,000 |
| The Sage School | $37,500 |
| Wild Farm Alliance | $25,000 |
| The New Village School | $25,000 |
| The New Village School | $20,000 |
| The Sage School | $18,750 |
| NatureBridge | $15,000 |
| Inquiring Systems Inc | $15,000 |
| Sun Valley Film Festival | $12,500 |
| Forward Global (formerly The Philanthropy Workshop) | $12,000 |
| Planned Parenthood Shasta DiabloNorthern Cali | $10,000 |
| Marin Foster Care Association | $10,000 |
| Body Traffic | $10,000 |
| The Leakey Foundation | $10,000 |
| MarAlliance | $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 (FY17–24, $731k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, 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.
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 +42% since the first grant, against +28% for the ones you funded once.
152 repeat relationships — 52 still active in FY2024, 100 since wound down; 16 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, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $112k 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
- SVSUN VALLEY INSTITUTE FOR RESILIENCE8× · 2017–2024 · $480k · revenue +62%
- WRWESTERN RESERVE ACADEMY8× · 2017–2024 · $367k · revenue +18%
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY8× · 2017–2024 · $325k · revenue +50%
Funded once
- MUMAUI UNITED WAYgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +188%
- FUForest Unlimitedone grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue -33%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2022 · $10k
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.
Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
The Sierra Fund (TSF) is a non-profit organization with a mission to restore ecosystem and community resiliency in the Sierra Nevada.
Create and publish educational materials, conduct professional development, promote awareness, and sponsor research on the spectacular biological diversity of the State of CA.
Bay Nature connects the people of the San Francisco Bay Area to our natural world and motivates people to solve problems with nature in mind. Our vision is that all people have a close relationship with theirnatural world.
The aquarium of the pacific's mission is to instill a sense of wonder, respect, and stewardship for the pacific ocean, its inhabitants, and ecosystems.
The institute for bird populations enables science-based conservation of species and habitats by studying the abundance, demography, and ecology of birds and other wildlife.
The San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory is dedicated to the conservation of birds and their habitats through science and outreach.
The academy is a renowned scientific and educational institution with a mission to regenerate the natural world through science, learning, and collaboration. based in san francisco's golden gate park, it is home to a world-class aquarium,…
California ocean science trust (ost) is a non-profit organization dedicated to accelerating progress towards a healthy and productive ocean future for california. created by state legislation, ost bridges the gap between cutting-edge…
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Science Friday Initiative Inc and the most unlike its peers is American Diabetes Association. 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 34 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
196 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. 196 of the 253 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 SUN VALLEY INSTITUTE FOR RESILIENCE ↗
- Who funds WESTERN RESERVE ACADEMY ↗
- Who funds CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds LSB LEAKEY FDTN FOR RESEARCH RELATED TO HUMAN ORIGINS BEHAVIOR AND SURVIVAL ↗
- Who funds THE NEW VILLAGE SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds THE AOPA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SPUR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds EAGLE HILL FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTSINC ↗
- Who funds MOAB MUSIC FESTIVAL INC ↗
- Who funds NATUREBRIDGE ↗
- Who funds Wild Farm Alliance ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO OPERA ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO SYMPHONY ↗
- Who funds THE SAGE SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds SPOT SUN VALLEY INC ↗
- Who funds KQED INC ↗
- Who funds THE UC DAVIS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo Inc ↗
- Who funds INQUIRING SYSTEMS INC ↗
- Who funds FLOURISH FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA FILM INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ↗
- Who funds SUN VALLEY FILM FESTIVAL INC ↗
- Who funds BERKELEY REPERTORY THEATRE ↗
- Who funds TAMALPAIS - STRAWBERRY PRESCHOOLS INC ↗
- Who funds AMHERST COLLEGE TRUSTEES ↗
- Who funds IDAHO BASE CAMP INC ↗
- Who funds THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND ↗
- Who funds WILDCARE ↗
- Who funds Sun Valley Community School Inc ↗
- Who funds OPAL COMMUNITY LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds Trustees of Tufts College ↗
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: Marin Community Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Spur Community Foundation Inc · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · McNabb Foundation · Swig Foundation · Boswell Family Foundation · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · Idaho Community Foundation Inc · Leonard & Beryl Buck Foundation · Sonoma County Community Foundation · The Fred Gellert Family 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 Springcreek 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.
- Xerces Society Inc — 22% of income from government
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- The Center for Independent Documentary Inc — 6% of income from government
- Amherst College Trustees — 0% 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 The Springcreek Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Springcreek 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.