· Private foundation
The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation
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 $10k217 grants · $552k
- $10k–50k219 grants · $5.9M
- $50k–250k840 grants · $107M
- $250k+725 grants · $512M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| STICHTING EUROPEAN CLIMATE FOUNDATION | $11,212,911 |
| STICHTING EUROPEAN CLIMATE FOUNDATION | $11,000,000 |
| AMALGAMATED CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC | $10,000,000 |
| CLIMATEWORKS FOUNDATION | $10,000,000 |
| STICHTING EUROPEAN CLIMATE FOUNDATION | $9,000,000 |
| MSI-US | $7,500,000 |
| SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION | $7,500,000 |
| THE ENERGY FOUNDATION | $7,000,000 |
| NEW VENTURE FUND | $7,000,000 |
| WINDWARD FUND | $6,666,666 |
| COMMUNITY VISION CAPITAL & CONSULTING | $5,500,000 |
| NAACP EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS INC | $5,000,000 |
| ELECTION TRUST INITIATIVE LLC | $5,000,000 |
| UNITED STATES ENERGY FOUNDATION | $4,500,000 |
| INTERNATIONAL SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FOUNDATION | $4,000,000 |
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 — 84% of grant dollars ($3.4B). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 16% that went abroad ($646M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $45.7M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 93% 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 — 16% of all-years giving ($646M)
52 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 7% of The William & Flora Hewlett 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +32% since the first grant, against +6% for the ones you funded once.
1391 repeat relationships — 799 still active in FY2024, 592 since wound down; 179 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, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $78M 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
- CFCLIMATEWORKS FOUNDATION8× · 2017–2024 · $151M · revenue +250%
- RLRESOURCES LEGACY FUND8× · 2017–2024 · $71M · revenue +63% · 60% of their budget
UNITED STATES ENERGY FOUNDATION5× · 2020–2024 · $56M · revenue +40%
Funded once
- CLCLIMATE LEAD INCone grant, 2023 · $13M · 42% of their budget
THE HOWARD UNIVERSITYone grant, 2021 · $10M · revenue +11%- TJTHE JEREMY AND HANNELORE GRANTHAM ENVIRONMENTAL TRUSTgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $10M · revenue +174% · 37% of their budget
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.
The California Water Data Consortium is an independent, nonprofit organization created by a partnership of state agencies and others to ensure that Californians have access to the best possible water and ecological information to make…
the organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the UCSF Foundation.
We work collaboratively to build open tools and resources for the evaluation and deployment of robust climate programs. We share analyses through public communication and collaboration with journalists in order to foster effective climate…
The AIA California, in collaboration with local components, is the voice of the architectural profession.
California Competes: Higher Education for a Strong Economy is a nonpartisan policy and research organization focused on identifying solutions to the states most critical challenges at the intersection of higher education, equity, and the…
Highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on u.s. foreign policy
Educate policymakers about equitable science-based solutions for climate, energy, & the environment
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
Deliver world-class resources and mentoring to enable every entrepreneur across the globe to realize their maximum potential.
The common application promotes access, equity, and integrity in the college admission process.
The caia association is a global credentialing body for alternative investments, representing professionals in over 95 countries. it upholds high ethical standards, offers the chartered alternative investment analyst designation, and…
to work alongside communities to build power, challenge systems of injustice, protect health, and improve quality of life.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Open Government Partnership Secretariat and the most unlike its peers is Nihonmachi Little Friends. 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 27 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) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.8% 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.
1302 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. 1302 of the 2,000 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 THE ENERGY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CLIMATEWORKS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds RESOURCES LEGACY FUND ↗
- Who funds ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES ENERGY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WINDWARD FUND ↗
- Who funds THE SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WESTERN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds MSI US ↗
- Who funds UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds WATER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds OXFAM-AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds IPAS ↗
- Who funds JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL BUDGET PARTNERSHIP ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT ↗
- Who funds Silicon Valley Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVE FOR IMPACT EVALUATION INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds The Pew Charitable Trusts ↗
- Who funds THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN POPULATION & HEALTH RESEARCH CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Learning Policy Institute ↗
- Who funds CLIMATE LEAD INC ↗
- Who funds R STREET INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds ID INSIGHT INC ↗
- Who funds ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND INC ↗
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 Zellerbach Family Foundation · Walter and Elise Haas Fund · Kenneth Rainin Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Carnegie Corporation of New York · Phyllis C Wattis Foundation · Climateworks Foundation · The Heising-Simons Foundation · Democracy Fund Inc · Fleishhacker Foundation · Omidyar Network Fund Inc · Esb Charitable 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 William & Flora Hewlett 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.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- Icivics Inc — 13% of income from government
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- Jobs for the Future Inc — 11% of income from government
- Ibis Reproductive Health Inc — 9% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- The Center for Effective Philanthropy Inc — 0% of income from government
- Achieving the Dream Inc — 0% of income from government
- Oxfam-America Inc — 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.