· Private foundation
Tim and Starleen Wood Foundation
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.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k16 grants · $38k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $61k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Rowland Hall | $30,000 |
| USANA Kids Eat | $10,600 |
| Center for Reproductive Rights | $10,000 |
| Planned Parenthood Federation of Am | $10,000 |
| Brennan Center for Justice | $5,000 |
| The Nature Conservancy | $5,000 |
| Humane Society of Utah | $5,000 |
| Best Friends Animal Society | $5,000 |
| Yale Enviroment School | $2,500 |
| Campaign Legal Center | $2,500 |
| League of Women Voters Education Fd | $2,500 |
| National Redistricting Foundation | $2,500 |
| Common Cause Education Fund | $2,500 |
| West Point Inn Association | $1,000 |
| PBS Utah | $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 (FY21–24, $13k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 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 +59% since the first grant, against +13% for the ones you funded once.
35 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2025, 21 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k 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
- UKUSANA KIDS EAT5× · 2021–2025 · $81k · revenue +10%
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC9× · 2017–2025 · $62k · revenue +12%- RHROWLAND HALL-ST MARK'S SCHOOL2× · 2024–2025 · $60k · revenue +25%
Funded once
- UFUTAH FOOD BANKgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue +53%
- FBFOOD BANK FOR MONTEREY COUNTYone grant, 2020 · $5k · revenue +8%
- HFHENRYS FORK FOUNDATION INCgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue +146%
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 union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
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.
Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan "fact tank" that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. Pew Research Center generates a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue and…
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
To advocate for policy changes by governments and corporations in order to preserve ocean life and return the oceans to their former abundance.
Connect conservationists and supporters, deploy resources to the field, provide conservationists with tools and support they need to succeed.
Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.
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 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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wikimedia Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is West Point Inn 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 40 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.
37 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. 37 of the 54 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 USANA KIDS EAT ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds ROWLAND HALL-ST MARK'S SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds HUMANE SOCIETY OF UTAH ↗
- Who funds WEST POINT INN ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Mill Valley Historical Society ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ROOM TO READ ↗
- Who funds Peace House Inc ↗
- Who funds UTAH FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION WESTERN HEMISPHERE REGION ↗
- Who funds CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC ↗
- Who funds Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for Monterey County ↗
- Who funds FOOD BANK FOR MONTEREY COUNTY ↗
- Who funds HENRYS FORK FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds UTAH OPEN LANDS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds CORAL TREE EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds MOUNTAIN JOURNAL INC ↗
- Who funds POPULATION CONNECTION ↗
- Who funds WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES CENTER OF PHOTOGRAPHY ↗
- Who funds THE CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL REDISTRICTING 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: Marin Community Foundation · Willard L Eccles Charitable Foundation · The Community Foundation of Utah · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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 Tim and Starleen Wood 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.