· Private foundation
Tomkat Ranch Educational 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 $10k37 grants · $111k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
- $250k+1 grant · $359k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| POINT BLUE CONSERVATION SCIENCE | $359,000 |
| PUENTE DE LA COSTA SUR | $10,000 |
| COMMUNITY ALLIANCE WITH FAMILY FARMERS | $7,050 |
| EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE INC | $7,000 |
| AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE OF MARIN (AIM) | $6,765 |
| VIDA VERDE NATURE EDUCATION | $5,000 |
| CIVIL EATS | $5,000 |
| ECOLOGICAL FARMING ASSOCIATION | $5,000 |
| ABUNDANT GRACE COASTSIDE WORKER | $5,000 |
| CURIODYSSEY | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| PIE RANCH | $4,750 |
| KITCHEN TABLE ADVISORS | $4,300 |
| OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION | $4,000 |
| SAN MATEO RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT | $4,000 |
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 (FY19–24, $109k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 78% 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 +76% since the first grant, against +26% for the ones you funded once.
71 repeat relationships — 32 still active in FY2024, 39 since wound down; 7 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, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9k 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
- PRPOINT REYES BIRD OBSERVATORY8× · 2017–2024 · $2.9M · revenue +158%
FOODCORPS INC3× · 2018–2023 · $625k · revenue +77%- ELEAT LEARN PLAY FOUNDATION2× · 2020–2022 · $455k · revenue +57%
Funded once
- TRTHE REGENSIS INSTITUTEone grant, 2022 · $650k · revenue -51% · 49% of their budget
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FOOD BANKSone grant, 2020 · $428k · revenue +7%- UOUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAone grant, 2018 · $300k
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.
Within the Americas promoting dialogue and research, producing studies and reports, conducting courses and conferences particularly in the areas of agroecology and food security
Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…
Ag Innovations facilitates collaboration among diverse groups to develop holistic solutions to California's most complex agricultural, natural resource and environmental challenges.
MESA connects and cultivates sustainable farmers and food systems leaders around the world.
The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.
The mission of the California Farmland Trust is to help farmers protect the best farmland in the world.
EFIs mission is to transform the produce industry and the lives of farmworkers by facilitating collaboration among workers, agricultural employers, retail buyers and consumer advocates.
Create and publish educational materials, conduct professional development, promote awareness, and sponsor research on the spectacular biological diversity of the State of CA.
The Sustainable Systems Research Foundation is a 501(c)3 non-profit green think tank and project incubator based in Santa Cruz, California. SSRF seeks to: Address complex and wicked environmental and sustainability problems that confound…
Our mission is to educate, organize and advocate for food and farming systems to become economically prosperous, ecologically sound and socially equitable.
Food forward fights hunger and prevents food waste by rescuing fresh surplus produce, connecting this abundance with people experiencing food insecurity, and inspiring others to do the same.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems Funders and the most unlike its peers is Holistic Manangement International. 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 21 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 6% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
118 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. 118 of the 155 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 CENTER FOR ECOLITERACY ↗
- Who funds POINT REYES BIRD OBSERVATORY ↗
- Who funds THE REGENSIS INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds FOODCORPS INC ↗
- Who funds EAT LEARN PLAY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FOOD BANKS ↗
- Who funds Meridian Institute ↗
- Who funds ALLENSWORTH PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds FRESH APPROACH ↗
- Who funds PUENTE DE LA COSTA SUR ↗
- Who funds FRESNO FOOD COMMONS TRUST ↗
- Who funds ASIAN BUSINESS INSTITUTE & RESOURCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds Urban Tilth ↗
- Who funds FOOD BANK FOR MONTEREY COUNTY ↗
- Who funds Center for Food Safety ↗
- Who funds The Land Institute ↗
- Who funds SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Farm2People ↗
- Who funds Goatapelli Foundation ↗
- Who funds SKIDMORE COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds ECDYSIS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WESTERN LANDOWNERS ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds MULTIPLIER ↗
- Who funds VIDA VERDE NATURE EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds MODOC HARVEST ↗
- Who funds HOMELESS GARDEN PROJECT ↗
- Who funds YOLO FARM TO FORK ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY ALLIANCE WITH FAMILY FARMERS ↗
- Who funds SONOMA FAMILY MEAL ↗
- Who funds MARIN PERFORMING STARS ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA FARMLINK ↗
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: Community Foundation for San Benito County · The Schmidt Family Foundation · Clif Family Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Marin Community Foundation · Rsf Social Finance Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Tides Foundation · Tomkat Foundation · Globetrotter Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · The San Francisco 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 Tomkat Ranch Educational 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.
- Foodcorps Inc — 21% of income from government
- Ecotrust — 14% of income from government
- Real Organic Project Inc — 1% of income from government
- Oregon State University Foundation — 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Tomkat Ranch Educational Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Tomkat Ranch Educational Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.