· Private foundation
The Tinker Foundation Inc
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
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 $10k6 grants · $35k
- $10k–50k27 grants · $670k
- $50k–250k25 grants · $2.1M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NATURA Y ECOSISTEMAS MEXICANOS AC | $130,000 |
| CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIONES Y ESTUDIOS SUPERIORES EN ANTROPOLOGIA SOCIAL | $120,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $113,000 |
| FUNDACION CRISALIDA INTERNACIONAL | $109,000 |
| GRUPO DE ANALISIS PARA EL DESARROLLO | $108,000 |
| FASE FEDERACAO DE ORGAOS PARA ASSISTENCIA SOCIAL E EDUCACIONAL | $100,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $100,000 |
| GLOBAL FUND FOR CHILDREN THE | $100,000 |
| UNIVERSIDAD MARCELINO CHAMPAGNAT | $100,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $100,000 |
| FUNDACION ALVARALICE | $90,000 |
| ENSINABR | $90,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $75,000 |
| FUNDACAO GETULIO VARGAS | $75,000 |
| ASOCIACION QECHI XCHOOL IXIM | $72,000 |
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 US giving — 50% of grant dollars ($14M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 50% that went abroad ($14M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY17–22, $326k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% 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
Beyond the US — 50% of all-years giving ($14M)
19 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 25% of The Tinker Foundation Inc’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, 15% of the giving stays in NY; read by stated purpose it is 6% — 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 +36% since the first grant, against +21% for the ones you funded once.
123 repeat relationships — 37 still active in FY2024, 86 since wound down; 19 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, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.0M 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
- RARAINFOREST ALLIANCE INC6× · 2017–2023 · $850k · revenue +157%
- TSTHE SONORAN INSTITUTE INC4× · 2017–2021 · $800k · revenue +52%
NATURE AND CULTURE INTERNATIONAL4× · 2017–2020 · $668k · revenue +168%
Funded once
- SCScientific Committee on Antarctic Researchone grant, 2017 · $315k
- ABAsociacion Boliviana para la Investigacion y Conservacion de Ecosistemas Anone grant, 2021 · $150k
- AACEAAone grant, 2019 · $149k
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.
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.
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…
To lead and coordinate the global initiative to address and prevent criminalization, violence, and impunity against indigenous peoples towards strengthening their collectives, solidarity, and actions.
Global ties u.s. (global ties) powers individuals, communities, and nations to build trust and advance peace and prosperity through international exchange.
Nrgi envisions a world where natural resources enable fair, prosperous and sustainable societies, instead of undermining them. nrgi exists because decisions about how natural resources are governed determine the well-being of people in…
The international institute on race, equality and human rights contributes to the promotion and defense of human rights, through training, technical assistance, advocacy, and strategic litigation conducted at the regional and international…
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 purpose of rainforest foundation us is to support indigenous peoples and forest communities in their efforts to secure their lands, protect their environment, and uphold their rights.
The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…
(see schedule o)
The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
See schedule o for a more detailed description of ide's mission statement and achievements.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Global Fund for Children and the most unlike its peers is Fundacion Carvajal. 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 33 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% 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.
85 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. 85 of the 211 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 RAINFOREST ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds THE SONORAN INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds NATURE AND CULTURE INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds GALAPAGOS CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds THE POPULATION COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds FAUNA & FLORA INTERNATIONAL USA INC ↗
- Who funds Earth Innovation Institute ↗
- Who funds FOREST TRENDS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds GLASSWING INTERNATIONAL USA INC ↗
- Who funds NAMATI INC ↗
- Who funds Environmental Law Institute ↗
- Who funds Womens Justice Initiative Inc ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL FUND FOR CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds IGARAPE INC ↗
- Who funds SOLUTIONS JOURNALISM NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds FABRETTO CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds SCHOOL THE WORLD INC ↗
- Who funds LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds TEACHUNITED ↗
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 Ford Foundation · Foundation to Promote Open Society · Open Society Institute · The Summit Charitable Foundation Inc · Tides Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · Luis Von Ahn Foundation · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Novo 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 Tinker Foundation Inc 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.
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- University of Miami — 5% 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.