· Private foundation
Thomas O Brown 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 $10k1 grant · $1k
- $10k–50k9 grants · $189k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| GLACIER NATIONAL PARK CONSERVANCY | $60,000 |
| NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION | $40,000 |
| GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION | $30,000 |
| GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION | $30,000 |
| ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSERVANCY | $20,000 |
| WASHINGTON'S NATIONAL PARK FUND | $20,000 |
| SAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE | $15,000 |
| TART TRAILS | $13,500 |
| PALOUSE LAND TRUST | $10,000 |
| PUBLIC LAND ALLIANCE | $10,000 |
| NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
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 (FY17–22, $135k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 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
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 +125% since the first grant, against +42% for the ones you funded once.
17 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2024, 7 since wound down; 1 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, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $30k 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
GLACIER NATIONAL PARK CONSERVANCY8× · 2017–2024 · $470k · revenue +125%
NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION8× · 2017–2024 · $215k · revenue +51%- GYGREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION8× · 2017–2024 · $206k · revenue +45%
Funded once
- TRTHE RIDGES SANCTUARY INCgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue +138%
- EPECOLOGY PROJECT INTERNATIONALone grant, 2017 · $2k · revenue -1%
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $1k · revenue +42%
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 pacific crest trail association's mission is to advocate for the pacific crest trail as an inspirational outdoor experience, to connect people to the pct, and to conserve the trail.
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…
Placer Land Trust works with willing landowners and conservation partners to permanently protect and care for natural and agricultural lands in Placer County for current and future generations.
The mission of the teton regional land trust is to conserve working farms and ranches, fish and wildlife habitat, and scenic open spaces in eastern idaho for this and future generations.
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.
We bring science, policy, and proven solutions directly to communities working to restore the integrity and natural connectivity of the landscapes in which they live. (see schedule o)
At Yosemite Rivers Alliance, we unite conservation and community to protect and restore the three rivers that ?ow through the Yosemite Regionthe Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and Merced.
The wood river land trust's mission is to protect and sustain the treasured landscapes and life-giving waters of the wood river valley and to inspire love for this special place for generations to come.
Colorado open lands' mission is to preserve the significant open lands and natural heritage of colorado through private and public partnerships, innovative land conservation, and strategic leadership.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
Dedicated to protecting the world's natural environment on behalf of the public by serving as a public interest law firm. refer to schedule o, part iii, line 4a, for list of litigated cases or advocacy work.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Glacier National Park Conservancy and the most unlike its peers is Latah Trail Foundation Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
18 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. 18 of the 21 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 GLACIER NATIONAL PARK CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION ↗
- Who funds SAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds TRAVERSE AREA RECREATION & TRANSPORTATION TRAILS INC ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC LANDS ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds PALOUSE LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds LATAH TRAIL FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds PALOUSE-CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON'S NATIONAL PARK FUND ↗
- Who funds ZION NATURAL HISTORY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS ↗
- Who funds GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE RIDGES SANCTUARY INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ECOLOGY PROJECT INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
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: National Park Foundation · Shell USA Company Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Thomas O Brown 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.
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.