· Private foundation
The White Pine Fund
Its FY2025 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 FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 23 grants below total $190,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $308,000 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $118,000 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2022
- Under $10k13 grants · $70k
- $10k–50k10 grants · $120k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Wilderness Society | $25,000 |
| Sierra Club Foundation | $13,000 |
| Pittsburgh Botanic Garden | $12,000 |
| Seacology | $10,000 |
| Snow Leopard Trust | $10,000 |
| Jane Goodall Institute | $10,000 |
| International Crane Foundation | $10,000 |
| Organic Consumers Association | $10,000 |
| Gorilla Foundation | $10,000 |
| Interagency Grizzly Bear Comm | $10,000 |
| Ruffed Grouse Society | $8,000 |
| National Resources Defense Council | $7,000 |
| Grizzly and Wolf Discovery Center | $7,000 |
| Cornell Lab of Ornithology | $7,000 |
| The Xerces Society | $7,000 |
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 (FY17–21) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 90% of your 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 +53% since the first grant, against +35% for the ones you funded once.
39 repeat relationships — 19 still active in FY2022, 20 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (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 FY2022, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $34k 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
- ISINTERNATIONAL SNOW LEOPARD TRUST6× · 2017–2022 · $102k · revenue +17%
- TWTHE WILDERNESS SOCIETY5× · 2017–2022 · $59k · revenue +40%
- HMHAWK MOUNTAIN SANCTUARY ASSOCIATION5× · 2017–2021 · $57k · revenue +128%
Funded once
- HAHUMANE ANIMAL RESCUEgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $4k · revenue +35%
- TBTHE BEACON INSTITUTE INCone grant, 2017 · $3k · revenue -96%
- GBGreen Building Allianceone grant, 2020 · $2k
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.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
The wildlife society's mission is to inspire, empower, and enable wildlife professionals to sustain wildlife populations and habitats through science-based management and conservation.
Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia's wild ecosystems in the forests,in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…
The zoological society of pittsburgh is dedicated to being a leader in, and significant contributor to, the conservation of endangered and threatened species. the society provides an enjoyable family experience that fosters understanding,…
Icl's mission is to create a conservation community and pragmatic, enduring solutions that protect and restore the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land and wildlife you love.
Greater yellowstone coalition works with all people to protect the lands, waters, and wildlife of the greater yellowstone ecosystem, now and for future generations.
We work towards a future where birds thrive across the americas because audubon is a powerful, diverse, and ever-growing force for conservation. (continued on schedule o).
Connect conservationists and supporters, deploy resources to the field, provide conservationists with tools and support they need to succeed.
The wildlife conservation society (wcs) saves wildlife and wild places worldwide through science, conservation action, education, and inspiring people to value nature.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Aviary in Pittsburgh Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Beacon Institute Inc. 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 48 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 9% 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.
35 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. 35 of the 48 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 INTERNATIONAL SNOW LEOPARD TRUST ↗
- Who funds THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds HAWK MOUNTAIN SANCTUARY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds OCEAN CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds XERCES SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds BAT CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds AUDUBON SOCIETY OF WESTERN PA ↗
- Who funds WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds American Forests ↗
- Who funds SEACOLOGY ↗
- Who funds The Gorilla Foundation ↗
- Who funds Pittsburgh Botanic Garden ↗
- Who funds POLAR BEARS INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds JANE GOODALL INSTITUTE FOR WILDLIFE RESEARCH EDUCATION AND CONSERVATION ↗
- Who funds ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds GALAPAGOS CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds GRIZZLY DISCOVERY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds ALASKA RAPTOR REHABILITATION CENTER ↗
- Who funds RUFFED GROUSE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL AVIARY IN PITTSBURGH INC ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION CONSULTANTS INC ↗
- Who funds OIKONOS - ECOSYSTEM KNOWLEDGE ↗
- Who funds REGIONAL TRAIL CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds GREEN BUILDING ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA ↗
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: Richard King Mellon Foundation · Hillman Family Foundations · Patagoniaorg · Aetna Foundation Inc · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Burkholder Foundation · C F Holdship Charitable Trust · Eqt Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Pittsburgh Foundation · Shell USA Company Foundation · Ibm International 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 White Pine Fund 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
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.